Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87380 Case Number: LCR11289 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A.C.O.T. - and - IAA0(FWUI) |
Claim on behalf of 20 agricultural development officers (ADO) for the payment of a Gaeltacht allowance.
Recommendation:
5. The Court sees no merit in the claim and does not recommend
its concession.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87380 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11289
CC87322 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11289
Parties: AN CHOMHAIRLE OILUNA TALAMHAIOHTA (ACOT)
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 20 agricultural development officers (ADO)
for the payment of a Gaeltacht allowance.
Background:
2. The Union, on behalf of the workers served a claim on the
Authority for the payment of a Gaeltacht allowance to all officers
who work in Gaeltacht areas. In support of its claim, the Union
cited the payments made to gardai, teachers, and local authority
engineers. The Authority was not prepared to concede the claim.
It did not accept that a large part of the officers work was
carried out through the medium of Irish. The Authority also
pointed out that a Gaeltacht allowance was never paid throughout
the Gaeltacht areas. Three officers engaged in work on a pilot
scheme received the allowance prior to the setting up of the
Authority. At present one officer is in receipt of the allowance
on a personal basis, but this is only a carry over from the pilot
scheme.
Agreement could not be reached at local level, and on 23rd
February, 1987, the matter was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Court. An invitation to a conciliation
conference was issued on 25th February, and a response to the
invitation was received on 16th March, 1987. A conciliation
conference took place on 1st May, 1987. No agreement was reached,
and on 11th May, 1987 the matter was referred to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
in Dublin on 25th June, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) Under the County Committees of Agriculture advisers
working in the Gaeltacht areas of Cork, Kerry and west
Mayo received the 10% Gaeltacht allowance. On the
establishment of ACOT a guarantee was given to the
staff that there would be no worsening of conditions.
ACOT's failure to make provision for the payment of a
Gaeltacht allowance to all advisers working in those
Gaeltacht areas is a worsening of conditions and
consequently a breach of that guarantee.
(ii) Similar categories of employees working in all
Gaeltacht areas, who in the course of their duty have
to interact regularly with the local community either
directly or through the media, receive such payments
(e.g. teachers, and guards). As in the case of
teachers the advisers' function is basically one of
communication where the information communicated can
have a vital bearing on the livelihood of the
recipient.
(iii) A substantial element of ACOT's programme in Gaeltacht
areas is conducted through the medium of Irish. It
states in the Bord na Gaeilge report 1985/86 in
reference to ACOT that bulletins, pamphlets and
circulars are available in Irish and that when the
services of ACOT are requested through Irish they are
provided (details supplied to the Court).
Authority's arguments:
4. (a) ACOT has never paid a Gaeltacht allowance to staff
working in the major Gaeltacht areas e.g. Connemara.
In the past a 10% Gaeltacht allowance was paid to 3
staff on a personal basis who worked in areas
designated as "Gaeltacht Pilot Areas." However, the
payment of two of these allowances have since been
discontinued. These staff were only paid this
allowance on the basis that the legislation setting up
ACOT requires that staff transferred from the County
Committees of Agriculture should suffer no worsening of
conditions.
(b) ACOT would not accept that its advisory staff carry out
a significant amount of their work through the medium
of Irish. While advisory staff would occasionally use
Irish when working in Gaeltacht areas, this accounts
for a relatively small amount of advisory work in such
areas.
(c) Staff in other semi-State bodies or in the civil
service who work in Gaeltacht areas do not receive such
an allowance. The grade of ADO is directly linked to
(parity was established last year by agreement) the
grade of assistant agricultural inspector in the
Department of Agriculture. The assistant agricultural
inspector gets no allowance for work carried out in
Gaeltacht areas and there is no reason why the ADOs
should get a Gaeltacht allowance when their analogue
grade does not. Were ACOT grades, who use only a small
degree of Irish in their work, to get a Gaeltacht
allowance, other public servants, who similarly use
only some Irish in the Gaeltacht, would have a basis to
claim a Gaeltacht allowance. Teachers receive
Gaeltacht allowances on the basis that they carry out
all their instruction through the medium of Irish.
Gardai who are stationed in the Gaeltacht are expected
to perform all their duties through Irish (including
Court duties) and accordingly receive a Gaeltacht
allowance.
(d) It should be noted that because of its financial
difficulties ACOT has been obliged to reduce the travel
allocation of its advisory staff by 30% within the past
two years. This is causing serious operational
problems for the organisation which can only be further
aggravated by the concession of a cost increasing
claim.
(e) Finally, it is not accepted that the conducting of some
advisory business through Irish imposes any undue
burden on staff. In such circumstances, and given the
very serious financial constraints under which ACOT is
currently operating, there is no justification for the
payment of these allowances.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court sees no merit in the claim and does not recommend
its concession.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
________________________
Chairman
9th July, 1987
P.F./J.C.