Labour Court Database
__________________________________________________________________________________
File Number: CD89481
Case Number: LCR12531
Section / Act: S67
Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
|
Subject:
Claim by the Union that Water Pollution Officers should be upgraded to Experimental Officer.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the view that there is merit in the Unions claim.
The Court noting the obligation of the Fisheries Board under
Section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1980 to introduce a Staff Scheme
which will set out conditions of employment and remuneration for
the Water Pollution Officers considers it unacceptable and not
conducive to good industrial relations that the Board has not
introduced such a scheme since the enactment of the legislation.
In respect of the claim that Water Pollution Officers be regraded
to Experimental Officers, the Court recommends that the parties
seek the assistance of an independent assessor to determine the
appropriate grade and this assessment to be completed and the
issue decided on or before the 30th November, 1989.
The assessor in undertaking the assignment, should update and
expand the job description prepared by the Irish Productivity
Centre in 1982.
In the event that the issue is not decided by that date the Court
shall make a recommendation.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89481 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12531
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE AND FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union that Water Pollution Officers should be
upgraded to Experimental Officer.
BACKGROUND:
2. There are ten workers concerned in this dispute, each of whom
is employed as a water pollution officer by one of seven regional
water pollution boards. The controlling body for the boards is
the Central Fisheries Board. The main functions of the water
pollution officers are as follows:-
(1) To take and test samples of water where pollution may
have occurred.
(2) To try and identify the source of the pollution.
(3) To prepare and give evidence in Court in the event of a
prosecution being carried out under the water pollution
Acts.
The workers salary is equivalent to that of a basic grade
technician in the Central Fisheries Board. This is equivalent to
the salary scale for technicians employed by Eolas, and also to
that of basic grade technicians in the now defunct An Foras
Forbartha. This body had two grades above that of basic
technician i.e. technician and experimental officer. The Union,
on behalf of the workers concerned, claimed that the water
pollution officers should be graded as experimental officers and
paid accordingly. The Board was not prepared to concede the claim
because (a) it was not convinced of its merits, (b) there was a
Government embargo on upgradings and (c) a staff scheme was
pending which was only being delayed until the Board recruited a
Personnel Officer. Agreement was not reached at local level, and
on 31st May, 1989 the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. A conciliation conference took place
on 16th June, 1989. No agreement was reached, and on 30th July,
1989 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. A Court hearing took place in Dublin on 15th
August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the water pollution officers are
seriously undergraded. Detailed evidence can be adduced which
demonstrates that in terms of qualifications, experience
(including length of service), the level of responsbility and
demands of the work, the appropriate grade for water pollution
officers is that of experimental officer (details supplied to
the Court). The original linkage with basic grade technicians
was arbitrarily decided by the Board, and is unsustainable.
2. Advertisements on behalf of the Central Fisheries Board
seeking additional water pollution officers by re-deployment
from Teagasc stated that the position was "under review for
upgrading to experimental officers" (details supplied to the
Court). The official side appears favourably disposed towards
the claim and has acknowledged that the work is essential,
highly valued and very effective. The Board has promised for
some time that a staff scheme would be introduced. This is a
legislative obligation on the Board, and the Union side would
be prepared to look at it with an open mind. To date however,
the Board has been unable to furnish specific proposals,
because of the lack of a personnel officer. It is simply not
good enough that the water pollution officers have to suffer
an unfavourable and inappropriate grade and salary structure
for such a reason.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The essential qualifications for the position of water
pollution officers are the same as those for ordinary
technician grade with whom the water pollution officers have
parity. The agreed job description and the level of work are
on a par with those of technician (details supplied to the
Court).
2. The Water pollution officers report directly to the
Manager and have no technical supervisory role (details
supplied to the Court).
3. Concession of the claim would be in breach of the
Government decision on recruitment to the Public Service. In
accordance with Section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1980, the
Board is obliged to introduce a Staff Scheme which will set
out conditions of employment and remuneration for the water
pollution officers. It would be inappropriate to concede this
claim in the absence of a Staff Scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the submissions of the parties is
of the view that there is merit in the Unions claim.
The Court noting the obligation of the Fisheries Board under
Section 32 of the Fisheries Act, 1980 to introduce a Staff Scheme
which will set out conditions of employment and remuneration for
the Water Pollution Officers considers it unacceptable and not
conducive to good industrial relations that the Board has not
introduced such a scheme since the enactment of the legislation.
In respect of the claim that Water Pollution Officers be regraded
to Experimental Officers, the Court recommends that the parties
seek the assistance of an independent assessor to determine the
appropriate grade and this assessment to be completed and the
issue decided on or before the 30th November, 1989.
The assessor in undertaking the assignment, should update and
expand the job description prepared by the Irish Productivity
Centre in 1982.
In the event that the issue is not decided by that date the Court
shall make a recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_________________________
1st September, 1989. Deputy Chairman
P.F./J.C.