Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88419 Case Number: LCR11997 Section / Act: S67 Parties: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION;THE IRISH CONGRESS OF TRADE UNIONS |
Loss of earnings due to redeployment.
Recommendation:
5. The claim before the Court was for the restoration of a pay
differential to each of two employees, a driver and a chargehand,
who were redeployed as a result of budgetary cut-backs. In the
course of its submissions to the Court the Union also asked that
Industrial Civil Servants being redeployed should retain any such
differentials on a personal basis.
The Court, having fully considered the submissions from both sides
and the requirement to avoid compulsory redundancies, recommends
that the appropriate way to resolve the issue is for the Union to
take up the offer of the Office of Public Works to negotiate a
lump sum payment as compensation for the two individuals
concerned.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Heffernan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88419 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11997
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
and
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
(Represented by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions)
SUBJECT:
1. Loss of earnings due to redeployment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose as a result of the transfer of two General
Operatives from the Furniture Branch in Rialto to Dun Laoghaire
Harbour and the Central Building Maintenance Workshops in Lad
Lane. Prior to their transfer one worker was in receipt of a
differential for driving duties and the other was in receipt of a
differential for chargehand duties. These differentials have not
been paid since they were transferred. The Union served a claim
on the Employer for the retention of the differentials on a
personal basis. The Employer rejected this claim. As no basis
for a settlement could be reached at local level the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No
agreement was reached at a conciliation conference held on 16th
May, 1988 and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court investigation into the
dispute was held on 29th July, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When vacancies arise in the established civil service
which involve redeployment, applications are invited from
interested staff. Industrial civil servants workers may be
directed to other areas without any element of choice on their
part.
2. Differentials are paid to industrial civil servants
under the CIF agreement, for work such as truck driving or
excavator operation. Where workers are redeployed to jobs to
which there are no differentials attaching, they revert to the
basic CIF general operative's rate. Other civil service
workers who are redeployed, hold their rate on a personal
basis (details supplied to the Court).
3. One of the reasons this problem has arisen is that the
method of rewarding additional responsibility in the
industrial civil service is by way of allowances on top of the
basic general operative rate, whereas in all other areas of
the service a grading structure exists. While in theory there
is only one industrial grade, in practice there are a large
number of grades.
3. 4. The circular governing redeployment in the civil service
mitigates against the industrial civil servant by effectively
precluding the retention of rates on a personal basis. The
intention of the framers of the circular was that people
should not lose money on redeployment. However, due to a
misinterpretation of the relevant circular, this intent does
not carry over to the industrial civil service.
5. Given the unique situation in the industrial civil
service, redeployment should be on a voluntary basis and
workers being redeployed should retain their rates on a
personal basis.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned were engaged as general operatives
and have at all times remained in that substantive grade.
They were assigned to driving and chargehand duties in the
Furniture Branch which attracted the appropriate differentials
for the period for which they were assigned to those higher
duties. In a redeployment situation, as in any work
situation, they are liable to be assigned to varying general
operative duties which may, or may not, attract differentials.
The same applies to other allowances. These were gains and
losses to the six workers who transferred from the Furniture
Branch to other locations.
2. At their new locations there are no driving or
chargehand duties to which the workers can be assigned. Even
if there were, other serving employees at those centres would
have a greater claim to such assignments. Failure to
recognise this could cause greater problems in the long term.
3. The Employer strongly refutes the claim that
differentials should be held on a personal basis. This would
be entirely contrary to general practice in the public
service, which precludes the carrying of allowances once
higher duties have ceased. It is imperative that allowances
and differentials cannot be paid where appropriate duties are
not being performed to earn them. The circular referred to by
the Union deals with the redeployment of workers whose grade
has become redundant and refers to basic salary, not
allowances.
4. There was no work for these workers in the Furniture
Branch. Redeployment was the only alternative to redundancy.
In the present climate the most which any employee in the
public sector can aspire to is to maintain their employment.
5. The Employer is willing to seek Department of Finance
sanction to meet a claim for reasonable compensation for the
loss of these differentials.
4. 6. Only two allowances are retainable on a personal basis
in the Civil Service, those for Private Secretary to Minister
and Private Secretary to Secretary, depending on length of
service as such.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The claim before the Court was for the restoration of a pay
differential to each of two employees, a driver and a chargehand,
who were redeployed as a result of budgetary cut-backs. In the
course of its submissions to the Court the Union also asked that
Industrial Civil Servants being redeployed should retain any such
differentials on a personal basis.
The Court, having fully considered the submissions from both sides
and the requirement to avoid compulsory redundancies, recommends
that the appropriate way to resolve the issue is for the Union to
take up the offer of the Office of Public Works to negotiate a
lump sum payment as compensation for the two individuals
concerned.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
17th August, 1988 -----------------
R.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman