LCR15425

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/560 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15425 (CC96/356) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UDARAS NA GAELTACHTA (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Walsh

SUBJECT:
1. 1. Job evaluation.
2. Regrading.




BACKGROUND:

2. The Union is seeking the upgrading of 8 clerical, administrative and executive staff members by either one or two grades. It is also seeking the re-introduction of a job evaluation scheme which was abandoned in 1983. The Udaras has rejected the Union's claims on the grounds that the previous job evaluation scheme was unsatisfactory and that a staffing agreement in 1994 finalised levels of personnel within each grade. It contends that there is no scope for upgrading staff except where vacancies arise.

The issue was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 30th May, 1996 and 5th July, 1996. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 19th December, 1996, the earliest date suitable to the parties.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Detailed individual submissions regarding each of the eight regrading claims have been submitted to the Court. Each of the staff concerned has willingly undertaken additional duties and responsibilities considerably in excess of those of their current grade.


2. The agreed grading scheme contains a provision for examining claims such as these, therefore each claim should be examined on its merits. The Union is willing to co-operate with the restoration of the previously agreed job evaluation scheme should the Employer agree.

3. Issues of funding and the control exercised by the relevant government department on staff conditions should be considered separately from procedures in relation to staff grading and work arrangements.



UDARAS' ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Udaras is subject to government policy on pay and numbers as are all state bodies. The appropriate route to address upgrading claims would have been under the local bargaining clause of the PCW, but this has already been agreed with the Union and is due to be paid shortly.

2. In 1994 a new staff structure was agreed between the parties. Concessions were made in terms of upgradings, increased staffing levels, creation of new posts, permanence of contract personnel and the filling of consequential vacancies. Inclusive of eleven upgradings in 1991, almost 20% of staff have now been upgraded.

3. The previous job evaluation scheme was less than satisfactory as it was unable to resolve cases in-house. Within the public service job evaluation schemes have virtually ceased to exist. Compared with staff in other public sector bodies the staff concerned enjoy excellent pay and conditions including a merit pay scheme.





RECOMMENDATION:

Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court has concluded that these claims could have been dealt with under Clause 3 of the PCW. As agreement under that clause has been reached between the parties, the Court is of the view that as concession of the claim would be cost increasing, the claim cannot be conceded.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
14th January, 1997______________________
D.G./D.T.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.