INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Management Refusal To Proceed With Job Evaluation In Respect Of 5 Clerical / Admin. Staff.
2. The Union is seeking job evaluations on behalf of five of its members. The issue was raised by a number of individual members in 2002 due to changes and additions to their responsibilities. Two of the posts are grade four and upgrading to grade five is sought in each case. Three of the posts are at grade five and upgrading to grade six is sought in each case. The current grading structure for administrative grades in the Company was put in place in July 2000 as a result of a collective agreement with the Union. The grading scale for administrative staff is in line with that in Local Authorities and pay is adjusted in line with terms of the Public Service Pay Agreements despite the Company being a private sector employer.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th January, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 31st July, 2007.
3. 1 The workers conditions of employment are based on those pertaining in the Local Authorities and the Health Service. Both areas have job evaluation schemes available to their employees. The right to have their job evaluated does not pre-suppose any particular outcome.
2 The process sought is based on the scheme developed in Local Authorities. The evaluation scoring system is based on an examination of a number of factors. It has been successfully adapted over time and applied in numerous different organisations.
3 Management are being unreasonable. The members concerned have long service and the claim is in response to developments in their work. The response of management is in sharp contrast to the manner in which people in other categories have been upgraded in the past.
4. 1 The Union's claim seeks to unilaterally alter the terms of the collective agreement made in July 2000. It is also in breach of the Towards 2016 Agreement.
2 A job evaluation scheme is available under the 2000 Agreement but is subject to certain criteria. These include that it must be an individual claim related to an individual post. It must be exceptional and would not alter the terms of the collective agreement. There must also be joint agreement between the Union and Company to evaluate the post.
3 The Company is unable to agree to the Union's claim because it does not satisfy the criteria. The upgrading of posts in the Union's claim would require that other posts at these grades be upgraded.
Having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, the Court is of the view that (given the provisions of the 2000 Collective Agreement and of the Job Evaluation Scheme, whereby there must be joint agreement between SIPTU and IMPACT to evaluate a position) the proposal made by IMPACT at Conciliation is reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th August, 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.