Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87569 Case Number: LCR11392 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: DUBLIN PORT & DOCKS BOARD - and - MR. D. O'SULLIVAN |
Claim for the payment of long service increments to two employees.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87569 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11392
Section 20(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
RECOMMENDATION NO. 11392
Parties: DUBLIN PORT AND DOCKS BOARD
and
A GROUP OF WORKERS
Subject:
1. Claim for the payment of long service increments to two
employees.
Background:
2. The workers concerned are claiming the payment of long service
increments to two employees (one has retired since the 17th July,
1987) because they are both over sixty years of age and have more
than ten years' service in their present grade. The claim is
based on the fact that similar increases were granted to two
officers in 1978 and to another in 1980 (details supplied to the
Court). The Board rejected the claim on the basis that the
present circumstances are entirely different to those which
existed in the past. As no local level agreement could be reached
and the Board declined an invitation to attend a conciliation
conference, the workers referred the matter to the Labour Court
under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
agreeing in writing to accept the Labour Court's recommendation.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 21st August, 1987.
Group's arguments:
3. (a) The two workers concerned are over sixty years of age and
received their last promotion on the 1st March, 1976.
Under the conditions laid down by the Board in 1978 both
qualified for the award of special long term increments
on the 1st March, 1986.
(b) The officers concerned should not be disadvantaged vis a
vis officers of similar grade in the matter of salary,
pension and lump sum on retirement. It is not understood
how the Board can treat some staff of equal status and
service less well than others. In a letter dated the
11th May, 1987, the Personnel Manager states that "the
precedent was established" by the Staff Committee "in a
particular set of circumstances". Similar circumstances
apply today.
(c) The Board, in making awards in the earlier cases, had in
mind that the recipients were approaching retirement age.
In the present circumstances, one officer has already
retired and the other will reach retirement age in
September, 1990.
(d) It has been the expectation of the longer serving members
of the staff that these overscale increments would apply
to those who fulfilled the conditions laid down by the
Board.
Board's arguments:
4. (a) While the question of special or overscale increments had
been discussed in 1977/78 with the Irish Transport &
General Workers' Union which represented staff interests,
including the applicants at that stage, no formal
agreement was entered into then or later which provided
for such a condition of service. The Board's view is
that the granting of any such special increase was
absolutely discretionary and that no right to such an
increase existed then or has since been established by
custom and practice.
(b) The circumstances relating to the granting of such an
increase in 1978 no longer exists. While the overall
manning levels have been substantially reduced, there has
been an actual increase in the number of promotional
opportunities at the two most senior grades (details
supplied to the Court).
(c) The Board believes that the claim has been entered now
based on the belief that a particular recent appointment
at Senior Administrative Officer level was unfair. The
Personnel Manager, at their request, met representatives
of the Group informally to discuss this appointment. The
question of overscale increases only arose when the
Personnel Manager indicated that an additional Senior
Administrative Officer would not be appointed.
(d) The Board recently entered into a manning agreement with
the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union
representing the clerical and administrative grades.
This agreement, inter alia, provided for the reduction of
the numbers of Senior Administrative Officers and
Administrative Officers by one and three respectively, to
the existing levels (11 and 14). This has obviously
impaired overall promotion prospects. However, the
agreement provided for a salary increase as a quid pro
quo. While the Group representing the claimants were not
directly involved in or a party of this agreement, they
were made aware of the outcome of the negotiations. They
did not object to the agreement and accepted the salary
increase that was applied.
(e) The Board's view is that the salaries paid reflect the
value of work done and the relative responsibility of the
grade, irrespective of the length of service or age of
the particular officers in that grade.
(f) If a vacancy at Senior Administrative Officer level
occurred in the normal course of events officers would be
invited to apply. Interviews would be held and an
appointment made. The Group appears to be suggesting
that if an officer aged over sixty and with ten years'
service in his current grade, applied for the vacancy and
was unsuccessful, he could seek overscale increments.
This "reward" to be granted irrespective of the fact that
an interview board considered that the particular officer
was less suitable for promotion than the successful
candidate. Such a situation would negate the whole
system of promotion based on merit and eliminate the
normal incentive that motivates employees to develop
their careers.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, does not recommend concession of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
3rd September, 1987
DH/PG Evelyn Owens
Deputy Chairman