Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87444 Case Number: LCR11364 Section / Act: S67 Parties: HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY - and - ITGWU |
Claim, on behalf of two employees of the H.E.A. for payment of ex-gratia lump sums in line with similar payments made to related grades in the Civil Service.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that as the claimants have absolute agreed
parity with the grades of Principal Officer and Assistant
Principal Officer in the Civil Service they have an entitlement to
the ex-gratia lump sum payments made to those grades. The Court
recommends that the parties should negotiate a settlement on this
basis - payment to be made when circumstances permit.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Shiel Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87444 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11364
CC87389 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11364
PARTIES: HIGHER EDUCATION AUTHORITY (H.E.A.)
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim, on behalf of two employees of the H.E.A. for payment of
ex-gratia lump sums in line with similar payments made to related
grades in the Civil Service.
Background:
2. The Higher Education Authority was set up in the early 1970s
and is a non-commercial State body, funded by the Exchequer.
Salary scales initially approved in 1972 and 1973 for the various
HEA grades equated with appropriate Civil Service grades, when
allowance had been made for a 5% employee's superannuation
contribution in the case of HEA scales. This parity in scales has
been maintained over the years. The grade of Deputy Secretary in
the HEA has been equated with that of Principal Officer (P.O.) in
the Civil Service and that of Assistant Secretary in the HEA with
that of Assistant Principal (A.P.) in the Civil Service. The
Civil Service Arbitration Board recently recommended a 15%
increase for A.P.s and a 17% increase for P.O.s in the Civil
Service to be paid in accordance with the special arrangements
agreed to in relation to the phasing of special increases as part
of the 25th wage round agreement. This automatically passed on
the related grades in the H.E.A. Subsequently, ex-gratia lump sum
payments were made to A.P. and P.O. grades in the Civil Service in
lieu of retrospection lost as a result of the phasing
arrangements. These payments were not made to H.E.A. grades. In
February, 1987, the Union wrote to the H.E.A. querying this fact.
The Authority indicated that it was not intended that these
payments should be passed on to its employees. The matter was
referred, on 2nd March, 1987, to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. A conciliation conference held on 31st March, 1987
failed to resolve the issue and it was referred to a full hearing
of the Labour Court. The hearing took place on 13th July, 1987.
Union's arguments:
3. (i) The Union considers that the ex-gratia lump sums
should be paid to the H.E.A. staff because they enjoy
a unique absolute parity with equivalent grades in the
Civil Service. This applies not only to pay but also
to other conditions of employment. The absolute
nature of the parity has been confirmed on several
occasions in the past.
(ii) In 1981 the grades of Executive Officer (E.O.) and
Higher Executive Officer (H.E.O.) in the Civil Service
received a special 8% pay award retrospective to 1st
September, 1980. In May 1981 this award was
sanctioned by the Department of Education on the same
basis for equivalent grades in the Authority subject
to -
"(a) both the Authority and the staff concerned
accepting the absolute nature of the pay
relationship with the civil service grades of EO
and HEO.
(b) agreement by the staff concerned to the type
of flexibility in working arrangements which has
been accepted by their counterparts in the Civil
Service".
In the university sector where an established
relativity exists between academic, administrative and
clerical grades and EO/HEO grades in the Civil
Service, this pay award was implemented only with
effect from 1st January, 1981. This matter was
disputed by UCG staff. However, since Clause 5.2 of
the 1980 Agreement on Pay Policy (relating to
relativity claims) states that -
"The effective date of any change shall not be
earlier than 1st January, 1981".
the College was precluded from offering this award
from an earlier date. Staff in the Authority,
nevertheless, got the award from the effective date of
1st September, 1980. This decision indicates the very
special relationship which exists between Authority
grades and their Civil Service counterparts. This was
recognised in Labour Court Recommendation No. 6872
(concerning the UCG claim) in which specific mention
was made of the fact that HEA staff had got the
increase from the earlier date.
"Strict parity exists between the relevant employees
of the Higher Education Authority an the Civil
Service executive staff which explains why the
former received the award in full".
(iii) Also in 1981 the Authority received sanction from the
Department of Education for the payment of lump sums
to the grades of Clerical Officer (C.O.) and Clerical
Assistant (C.A.) in the Authority. These lump sums
equated with amounts paid to equivalent grades in the
Civil Service and were an interim payment pending
completion of negotiations on claims for increased pay
for these grades in the Civil Service. Again, the
sanction of the Department for the payment of these
lump sums was subject "to both the Authority and the
staff concerned accepting the absolute nature of the
pay relationship with the civil service grades of
Clerical Officer and Clerical Assistant".
(iv) As recently as 1986 a pay award sanctioned for
Messengers, Attendants and Cleaners in the Civil
Service was automatically sanctioned for the grade of
Cleaner in the Authority. This award was
retrospective to 1st August, 1984. In normal
circumstances it would have been expected that this
award would have been subject to the phasing
arrangements in the 1986 Public Sector Pay. The
Authority staff, however, were treated in exactly the
same way as their Civil Service counterparts and
received the award retrospective to 1 August 1984.
(v) Up to 1984 the various HEA scales diverged slightly
from Civil Service scales arising from the fact that
where pay agreements provided a flat rate increase, as
where a minimum or maximum applied, the increase in
HEA scales did not compensate for superannuation
contributions. At that time the practice was that the
Department of Education brought these scales back into
line with the Civil Service every 3/4 years. In June,
1984, the Authority was advised by the Department of
Education that "Future salary scale revisions in the
Authority may be based on Civil Service scales plus
1/19th".
(vi) In 1979, prior to the unionisation of staff employed
in the Authority, the HEA sought approval from the
Department of Education to implement Civil Service
Arbitration Report No. 373 which related to
H.E.O. and E.O. in the Civil Service. The Department
responded that as this claim was in excess of 2% it
would be necessary to process it in accordance with
the terms of the Employer - Trade Union National
Agreement, 1978. In order to comply with this
requirement the Authority and the staff concerned made
a joint submission to the Labour Court on the matter.
(Copy supplied). Labour Court Recommendation No. 5253
which recommended payment of the increase proposed and
from the dates proposed recognised the special
relationship between Civil Service and H.E.A. grades.
(vii) It was, and is the understanding of HEA staff that the
specific and agreed relationship which exists between
all grades in the HEA and their equivalents in the
Civil Service would always be maintained since this
has been the case in the past and this total pay
parity has been matched by total parity of conditions
of service e.g. superannuation benefits, leave
arrangements, overtime rates, allowances etc. In fact
all general and special Civil Service pay awards and
their retrospective elements have always been
automatically applied to the appropriate staff in the
HEA. The Union has never had to specifically claim
these awards.
(viii) Concession of this claim is unlikely to have
repercussive effects in the public sector, because of
the very specific relationship which exists between
HEA staff and their Civil Service counterparts. The
cost to the Authority in 1987 would be less than #500.
It is also understood that these lump sums have
already been conceded to grades other than those
covered by the original adjudication awards e.g.
Agriculture Development Officers employed by ACOT.
Authority's arguments:
4. (a) Under the provisions of the Higher Education Authority
Act, 1971, the Authority may only pay to its employees
such remuneration and allowances as has been approved
by the Minister for Education with the concurrence of
the Minister for Finance.
(b) The Government decision provided for the payment of
the ex gratia lump sums only to those grades directly
covered by outstanding adjudication findings, or who
had been given an explicit Ministerial commitment to
that effect. Lump sums are not payable to other
analogous grades in the Civil Service, third level
educational institutions and Exchequer-funded State
sponsored bodies whose pay is related to those grades
which did receive the ex gratia lump sums. The number
in the grades so affected is about 5,800 including
1,000 in the Civil Service, 3,800 in third level
educational institutions and colleges; and 1,000 in
Exchequer-funded State bodies. A number of these
grades, e.g. those within the Civil Service have
written automatic pay linkages with AP/PO grades,
under which they do not even make separate claims in
their own right. Nevertheless these did not get the
ex gratia lump sums. These also include grades in the
educational sector which are related to teachers on
the common basic scale who have not received the
teachers' ex gratia lump sums.
(c) The Government's position in relation to ex-gratia
lump sums was determined by the state of the public
finances, and by the need to contain pay costs.
Although the cost of conceding this claim in the HEA
would be relatively small, the cost of repercussive
claims by the groups referred to above would cost the
Exchequer some #4,000,000. Having regard to the state
of the public finances resources to meet this cost
could not be made available. Serious economic and
budgetary problems face the country including
unemployment, an unacceptably high current budget
deficit, high interest rates and a declining level of
investment. For these reasons drastic measures have
had to be taken to curtail public expenditure across a
wide range of services. There is broad recognition of
these problems and it is widely accepted that a
reduction in the current Budget deficit is essential
to resolving them. In his Budget speech of 31st March
last the Minister for Finance said "we now find that
we have no option, given the present state of the
public finances but to direct that as from today no
public service employers are to pay any special
increases other than those already approved and for
which provision is being made". In this context the
claim cannot be conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, is of the view that as the claimants have absolute agreed
parity with the grades of Principal Officer and Assistant
Principal Officer in the Civil Service they have an entitlement to
the ex-gratia lump sum payments made to those grades. The Court
recommends that the parties should negotiate a settlement on this
basis - payment to be made when circumstances permit.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th September, 1987 Nicholas Fitzgerald
A.K./P.W. Deputy Chairman