LCR22942

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

S26(1) Referral (CAM-100048-22)

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 6 December 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 March 2024.   

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

1. Grade 5 is the rate for the role of staff assigned to revenue collection duties and is the minimum grade in 29 of the 31 local authorities in the country.
2. There was no difference in the roles and responsibilities of Grade 4 and Grade 5 posts from 2009 until 2022 and throughout this period staff at grade 4 were often required to train new grade 5 colleagues.
3. Every year the Chief Executive Officer issues a CE Order appointing staff to collect revenue on behalf of Mayo County Council.  No distinctions are made in this order regarding the grading of appointed staff.

 EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer argues that this is a claim for re-grading which is a cost increasing claim and prohibited under the public service agreement at the time of the claim.
2. Conciliation on the issue took place in 2018 and following that the Employer did not hear from the Union again until 2022.
3. The Employer says that any regrading of the Grade 4 posts can only result in appointment from panels in place following competition as is the practice in the sector.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a claim for upgrading of four Grade 4 Revenue collectors (Assistant Staff Officers) to the grade of Grade 5 (Staff Officer).

The Trade Union submitted that a 2008 collective agreement is such as to mean that the four workers should be upgraded. None of the workers involved in the within claim were involved in the matter at the time of the 2008 agreement. At that time, at their volition, some of the then incumbents took up a role as Staff Officer and some chose not to do so.

The Trade Union submits that the work carried out by the claimants is uniformly done at Grade 5 level in 29 of 31 local authorities across the local authority sector. The employer rejects this submission and submits that there is no uniform grade structure for this work in the sector and that there is a mix of Grade 4, Grade 5 and other staff engaged in this work.

The employer submits that its structure for revenue collection is based on four areas with a Grade 5 in a supervision role and a Grade 4 assigned to each area. The Trade Union disputes that this is the operational structure in place.

There is no dispute between the parties that the agreements in place in the employment are such as to mean that wherever a vacancy arises at grade 5 level, a competition must be held among relevant staff. It is not disputed that, at this time, a panel is in place in the employment which has been formed so that grade 5 vacancies which might arise in the employment can be filled from that panel. That panel follows the conduct of a competition in the employment for placement on the panel.

The Court can find no basis to conclude that there is in place a uniform grade structure for revenue collection work across the sector, or that a national grading agreement is in place between the parties to that effect.

Similarly, the Court cannot conclude that the agreed arrangements in place in the employment would permit the creation of four Grade 5 positions and the allocation of those positions to the claimants.

The Court notes the fact that the parties seem to be unable to agree that the structure in place in the employment is such that there are four areas in being, with one Grade 4 and one Grade 5 position allocated to each or that the Grade 5 postholder in each area carries supervisory and certain other duties which the Grade 4 postholder does not.

In all the circumstances of the information available to the Court, and the striking inability of the parties to agree the fundamental factual underpinning of the revenue collection operation in the employment, the Court is unable to recommend concession of the Trade Union’s claim.

The Court so decides.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
20 March 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.