Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD86944 Case Number: LCR11018 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WESTERN REGIONAL FISHERIES - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of one Fishery Officer for the re-instatement of an increment for the year 1985/1986.
Recommendation:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant has not been treated
in an unreasonable manner and accordingly does not recommend
concession of the claim.
The Court notes the Boards intention of granting an increment from
1st January, 1987.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD86944 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11018
CC86844 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11018
PARTIES: WESTERN REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARD
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of one Fishery Officer for the re-instatement
of an increment for the year 1985/1986.
Background:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Board in 1978 and is
currently on point 3 of the Regional Board's scale for Fishery
Officers. Such officers are engaged in fisheries protection
duties. Details of the salary scale were supplied to the Court.
A Staff Scheme for field grades in the Fisheries Boards (copy
supplied to the Court) became effective from 25th May, 1984. The
worker here concerned received a salary increase of 22.3% with
effect from 25th April, 1984 on introduction of the scheme and was
paid an increment on 1st January, 1985, bringing him to Point 3 of
the scale. The Staff Scheme provides that an assessment report on
each staff member will be made annually. On 10th January, 1986,
the worker was informed by letter from the Regional Manager that
in view of his performance during the year 1985, payment of his
increment (which was otherwise payable on 1st January, 1986) was
being withheld. This decision was based on the assessment review
of the Fisheries Inspector. Following meetings and correspondence
between the Union and management no agreement was reached, and the
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 8th May, 1986. A conciliation conference took place on
17th July, 1986. Both sides agreed to the following:-
"That the Board bring forward the review of the worker's
incremental entitlement to 1st August, 1986, and that in
that context the Union without prejudice withdraw the
claim regarding the disciplinary action".
The increment was not restored following the August review,
however, and the matter was again discussed at another
conciliation conference held on 10th September, 1986. Again, no
agreement was reached and the matter was referred, on 29th
November, 1986, to the Labour Court. A Court hearing took place
on 28th January, 1987, in Galway.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) At a meeting held in August, 1986, the Regional
Manager stated:-
(a) that the worker had not been involved in any
seizures or detections in 1986,
(b) that the worker had been absent from duty without
permission on 2nd August, 1986, and
(c) that the worker had refused to drive the Board
vehicle.
The worker and the Union refute these claims. In
relation to the first, the worker informed the
Regional Manager that no incidence of breaches of the
law had occurred while he was on duty and, further,
that he was prohibited from taking part in Sea Patrols
where most seizures were made.
(ii) Clause 6.4. of the Staff Scheme states:-
"6.4 Staff Assessment
An assessment report on each staff member will
be made annually. It will be used primarily in
relation to the assessment of staff for
incremental progression, as well as assisting
management to reach decisions affecting the
development of the staff member's career, e.g.
training needs, assignment needs, etc.
All reports are confidential to the Management
of Boards and the completed form will not be
shown to the officer under report. However,
any area of performance which is the subject of
adverse rating will be conveyed to the staff
member concerned, who has the right of appeal
through the grievance procedure".
The Union contends that this Clause, which is being
cited by management in support of the decision to
withhold this worker's increment, should relate only
to new employees. The Union is also seeking to have
the clause reworded so that incremental increases are
service related only.
(iii) In September, 1986, the worker commenced work under a
new Inspector, who has stated that the worker's
performance and attendance is excellent and that he
has carried out duties beyond those required of him.
The Union believes that the previous Inspector
furnished unfounded bad reports on the worker to the
Regional Manager.
(iv) The Union considers that if there were shortcomings in
a worker's performance, the warning system contained
in the Staff Scheme should be invoked. The only
disciplinary record against this worker is an alleged
verbal warning on 22nd November, 1985. The worker
denies having received a warning on that date.
(v) The Union seeks retrospective payment of the worker's
increment to 1st January, 1986.
Company's arguments:
4. (a) The salary increment was withheld as a result of the
worker's performance.
(b) The worker was not involved in any seizures or
detections in relation to his responsibility for
enforcement of the fisheries laws.
(c) The worker absented himself from duty without
authorisation.
(d) The worker failed to co-operate to a satisfactory
degree with his Inspector and colleagues (details
concerning items (b), (c) and (d) were supplied
verbally at the Court hearing).
(e) The worker's contract of employment provides for
annual performance assessment in relation to
incremental progression and in this instance
management was not satisfied with the worker's
performance during 1985. Concession of the present
claim would constitute an infringement of the terms of
employment in this area.
(f) At the hearing management indicated that it was
prepared to authorise an incremental payment from 1st
January, 1987.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court is satisfied that the claimant has not been treated
in an unreasonable manner and accordingly does not recommend
concession of the claim.
The Court notes the Boards intention of granting an increment from
1st January, 1987.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
19th February, 1987 _______________________
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman