Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87348 Case Number: LCR11282 Section / Act: S67 Parties: A.C.O.T. - and - I.A.A.O. |
Claim on behalf of 500 Agricultural Development Officer (A.D.O.) introduction of fortnightly pay.
Recommendation:
5. The Court accepts that the standard method of payment to
A.C.O.T. employees is monthly and the existence of a minority with
entitlement to fortnightly payment does not warrant concession of
the claim to the majority of staff.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87348 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11282
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11282
Parties: AN CHOMHAIRLE OILIUNA TALMHAIOCHT
and
FEDERATED WORKERS' UNION OF IRELAND
(IRISH AGRICULTURAL ADVISORS' ORGANISATION BRANCH)
Subject:
1. Claim on behalf of 500 Agricultural Development Officer
(A.D.O.) introduction of fortnightly pay.
Background:
2. When A.C.O.T. was set up in 1980, advisory staffs of the
County Committees of Agriculture and some of the Department of
Agriculture advisory staff were transferred to it. The ex
employees of the Department of Agriculture are paid on a
fortnightly basis while the ex county committee officers are paid
monthly. The Union on behalf of the latter workers, served a
claim on A.C.O.T. that the ex-county committee workers should also
be paid on a fortnightly basis. The Union contends that these
workers do exactly the same work, and have the same qualifications
as those workers who are on fortnightly pay. Furthermore, all
comparative grades used for pay comparison purposes in the civil
service as well as semi-State organisation are also paid on a
fortnightly basis. Having examimined the costs involved A.C.O.T.
were not prepared to concede on the claim. A.C.O.T.s policy is to
pay all staff above clerical grade on a monthtly basis and the
only exception to this would be the ex-departmental staff. These
latter were given an undertaking that their conditions would not
deteriorate on moving from the Department. In the present
financial climate. The organisation contended that it could not
consider the claim. No agreement was reached at local level, and
on 16th December, 1986, the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. An invitation to a
conciliation conference was issued on the 6th January, 1987 and
a response was received on 19th March, 1987. A conciliation
conference took place on 28th April, 1987. Agreement was not
reached and on 30th April, 1987, the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing took place in Dublin on 29th May, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) A general relativity exists between the workers
concerned in this case and the common professional
recruitment grade within the civil service (details
with Court). As these civil service grades are paid on
a fortnightly basis, the same conditions should apply
to the staff transferred from the County Committees of
Agriculture on the establishment of A.C.O.T. and to
those who were employed by A.C.O.T. since its
inception.
(ii) The payment of salary on a fortnightly basis is the
norm, not only in the civil service, but in numerous
other semi-State organisations e.g. An Post and An Bord
Telecom.
(iii) No basis for rejecting the claim has been put forward
by A.C.O.T. other than the costs involved. The Union
has reservations about the basis for calculating the
cost of implementing the claim (details with Court).
(iv) To summarise, it is clear that an anomaly exists in the
method of payment for Agricultural Development Officers
who are of the same grade and performing the same
function within A.C.O.T. The Union believes that this
anomaly should, in justice, be rectified forthwith.
A.C.O.T.'s arguments:
4. (a) The cost of conceding the claim would be in excess of
#60,000, apart from additional overtime costs arising
in the administration of the payroll at local level
which would be difficult to quantify at this stage.
A.C.O.T. is currently operating under severe financial
constraints. In spite of expenditure cuts of #1
million which have already been implemented, the
organisation still faces a deficit of over #2 million
in 1987. Consequently, a claim rejected in 1985
because of its cost implications for the organisation
at that time, cannot now be conceded given the
considerably worse financial position which now
pertains.
(b) There is no valid justification for changing the system
of payment for the claimants. It should be noted that
there are currently 661 staff within the AD0 grades. A
minority of these (approx 8%) who transferred from the
Department of Agriculture to A.C.O.T. in 1980 continued
to be paid on a fortnightly basis. It would be
inappropriate that they should determine the method of
payment for 92% of staff within these grades who have
always been paid on a monthly basis.
(c) Concession of this claim would constitute an
improvement in the conditions of employment for the
staff concerned. In this regard it should be noted
that in the light of current Government policy A.C.O.T.
is unlikely to be in a position to effect improvements
in the conditions of employment of any of its staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court accepts that the standard method of payment to
A.C.O.T. employees is monthly and the existence of a minority with
entitlement to fortnightly payment does not warrant concession of
the claim to the majority of staff.
The Court does not therefore recommend concession of the Unions
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________________
Deputy Chairman.
26th June, 1987.
P.F./J.C.