LCR22913

SUBJECT:

Managements refusal to implement a Regrading Report. (CAM-1000435-23).

BACKGROUND:

This matter 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 24 November 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 January 2023.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS: 

1. The Union states the Employer has failed to implement the recommendations of an Independent Job Evaluation report commissioned by the Employer and apply the appropriate grade of Assistant Principal to its 3 Members.

2.The Union states its Members entered into the Job Evaluation process in good faith with the expectation that the result of this process would be adherence to the recommendations of the evaluator by the Employer.

3. The Union request the Court to find in favour and recommend the Employer implements the recommendation of the Independent Job Evaluation report by regrading the 3 Higher Executive level grades to the correct grade of Assistant Principal Officer (standard).

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 

1. The Employer agrees it did agree to an Independent Job Evaluation process being carried out on the roles in question.

2. The Employer state, although it is sympathetic to the positions of these Employees, the Employer is a statutory body which is bound by rules and regulations provided in the Statute with little or no autonomy in how it may determine remuneration for Employees.

3. The Employer respectfully requests that the Court reaches a recommendation consistent with the points raised by the Employer at the hearing.

RECOMMENDATION:

The dispute before the Court arises from the unions claim for regrading of three posts at Investment Executive level. It is not disputed between the parties that in 2021 with the approval of the then CEO a job evaluation was carried out which recommended that the posts be regraded from HEO to AO level. However, in order to make any changes to gradings and or structures, the Employer submitted that they required sanction from the parent Department and DPER. In the process of obtaining sanction a number of queries arose about the veracity of the job evaluation and whether the correct approvals had been obtained prior to someone being appointed to carry out the job evaluation.

A second issue that also arose was that, if the posts were to be upgraded it would increase the pay roll costs of the organisation. It was not in dispute between the parties that they were covered by the Building Momentum Agreement which at paragraph 5.6 prohibits cost increasing claims during the lifetime of the agreement, which ran from 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2023.  It is not in dispute that this claim was made during the lifetime of that agreement.

Discussion

Building Momentum is a collective agreement which both parties signed up to, and benefitted from. The claim before the Court is a straightforward pay regrading claim which is contrary to the party’s collective agreement and therefore must fail.

The Court cannot recommend concession of the Unions claim at this point in time.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
29 January 2024	Deputy Chairman