LCR23194

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 26(1), Industrial Relation Act,1990.

Matters arising from LCR22967

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 6th August 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 31st October 2025.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court is a claim by Forsa that the employer has breached the terms of a 2013 “Framework Agreement”, concluded in the context of the establishment of TUSLA – Child and Family Agency on 1 January 2014, which provided for the transfer of all collective agreements and terms and conditions of employment of staff transferring employment from the HSE to the new agency at that point in time.

A HSE job evaluation scheme for Clerical and Administrative Grades III-VI (albeit suspended in 2008) was included in a list of collective agreements applicable to HSE staff who transferred to the newly established TUSLA.

The job evaluation scheme was re-activated for HSE staff in 2016. The scheme was reactivated in TUSLA in January 2020 for a short period but was later suspended, as sanction for the scheme was not granted by TUSLA’s parent departments.

The dispute about reactivating breach of the Framework Agreement was considered under the internal mechanisms for resolving differences regarding the interpretation of the Building Momentum collective agreement and, subsequently, referred to the Labour Court.

In LCR22967, the Court recommended the parties engage to achieve a shared understanding of (i) the operational requirements for job evaluation, (ii) concerns regarding the inappropriate assignment of work to persons of a lower grade, (iii) the potential costs of operating the job evaluation scheme and (iv) how the scheme might operate on a ‘cost neutral’ basis. Once a shared understanding of those matters was achieved, the Court recommended the parties engage at the WRC to reach an agreement on the operation of the suspended job evaluation scheme. If agreement was not reached, the matter could be referred back for a final Court recommendation. In making that recommendation, the Court noted that the question of the necessity for sanction is not one for the Labour Court.

The parties returned to the Labour Court in November 2024, however, that hearing was adjourned to allow TUSLA engage with its stakeholders and clarify its position in relation to the matter in dispute.

The parties have returned to the Court and now seek that it makes a final definitive recommendation.

TUSLA’s position is that introduction of a job evaluation scheme breaches the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2024 - 2026 which precludes cost increasing claims, apart from those that fall within local bargaining provisions. It contends that guarantees provided in 2014 to staff transferring to TUSLA were never intended to last into perpetuity and the introduction of a job evaluation scheme would have significant cost and contagion implications for the non-commercial state agency sector and public sector, as analyses demonstrates such schemes are cost increasing.

The Union’s position remains that the dispute before the Court is not a cost increasing claim, as it relates solely to the reactivation of an existing scheme applicable to staff who transferred employment from the HSE in 2014 and it is not a claim for the introduction of a new job evaluation scheme.

The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions made at the reconvened hearing.

As stated in LCR22967 it was clear to the Court, and accepted by the parties, that the suspended job evaluation scheme was encompassed by the 2013 “Framework Agreement” and included in a list of collective agreements applicable to those HSE staff in Clerical and Administrative Grades III-VI, who transferred to the newly established TUSLA in 2014. Both parties acknowledged they accepted LCR22967.

This Court has consistently pointed out that while no agreement can be immutable for all time, good industrial relations practice requires parties to uphold agreements in place unless and until they are voluntarily renegotiated or terminated by agreement between those parties. 

The Court notes that the purpose of the suspended job evaluation scheme is to evaluate a role or job to determine the appropriateness of the grade for that role. It evaluates the role and not the person. The Court is informed that an underpinning feature of the scheme is that it is cost neutral, insofar as any cost arising is incorporated within existing budgets.

What is unclear to the Court is the current operational requirement for a job evaluation scheme in the organisation given the lack of any meaningful engagement between the parties in relation to that matter, as recommended by the Court in its earlier recommendation. The Court notes that this remains an outstanding matter for the parties.

At the hearing, the employer expressed that it was satisfied that staff are correctly assigned work commensurate with their grades and that it does not see a current operational requirement for job evaluation in the organisation.

For its part, the union states the suspended job evaluation scheme forms part of the existing terms and conditions of employment for all staff in Tusla and access to the scheme should not be denied to these workers.

The dispute before the Court relates to the operation of the 2013 “Framework Agreement” which provided for the transfer of all collective agreements and terms and conditions of employment of staff transferring employment from the HSE to Tusla in 2014.

Taking account of the very particular circumstances of this case, the Court recommends the immediate reactivation of the suspended job evaluation scheme for those employees in Grades III to VI encompassed by the 2013 Framework Agreement who transferred in Tusla in 2014.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
FC	______________________
25 November 2025	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Fiona Corcoran, Court Secretary.