INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE)
Chairman: Mr McGrath
Employer Member: Mr Brennan
Worker Member: Mr Rorke
2. The worker was initially appointed on a temporary basis in March, 1993, to carry out accounts duties at the National Dairy Product Centre , Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork. He was remunerated at Grade IV level. In February, 1996, his appointment was made permanent. The Union's claim is that the worker's post should be Grade V because of the range of duties he undertakes.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 12th December, 1996. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd January, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th March, 1997, in Cork.
3. 1. The worker reports directly to the director of operations of the Food Division (dairy products) of Teagasc. As company secretary of Moorepark Technology Limited, the worker also reports to the director of operations who is the managing director of Moorepark Technology Limited. The worker does not report to his line manager who would be unfamiliar with his work details. The full list of the worker's responsibilities (supplied to the Court) shows that worker's grade should be at Grade V.
2. The worker's role in the food division (dairy products) is similar to that of another worker in the food division (national food centre). Their duties and responsibilities are directly comparable and both workers have a similar operating budget of £3.5 million. The worker in the national food centre is assessed at Grade V.
3. A report by the Institute for Public Administration (IPA) in 1989 recommended a Grade V rating for the worker's position. The review carried out by Centre for Management and Organisation Development (CMOD), Department of Finance in March, 1996, was flawed as Teagasc had already categorised the position as an "unsanctioned Grade IV post." The only result of the review was to make the post a permanent one. It did not identify the correct grade for the post.
4. 1. In March, 1996, a "review" for clerical/administrative staff within Teagasc was issued by the CMOD which recommended that the worker's post be established as permanent. Following this recommendation, the post was sanctioned by the relevant Government department at Grade IV level. The worker applied for the post and, following an internal confined competition, accepted the post at Grade IV. The worker is the only staff member seeking to have the findings of the CMOD review overturned in respect of his post.
2. The worker's claim for a Grade V level was judged by the CMOD as not being justified. The CMOD review staff discussed the worker's duties with him and considered the documentation presented by him. Following this, the CMOD decided that the post should be at Grade IV level. Teagasc supports this decision and could not be expected to review the post again in such a short period of time.
The Court has fully considered all of the points raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions and finds that there are no grounds, given all of the circumstances, to warrant a change in the grading of the post.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th June, 1997______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.