Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87964 Case Number: LCR11690 Section / Act: S67 Parties: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - and - TASS (M.S.F. |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 150 technicians/craft assistants in Regional Technical Colleges (R.T.C.) for a sick pay scheme similar to that which applies in the City of Dublin Vocational Educational Committee (C.D.V.E.C.) Colleges.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the terms of the Court's Recommendation of
6th December, 1979, the Court recommends concession of this claim.
This recommendation should be implemented in accordance with
Clause 3.2. of the current Agreement on Pay in the Public Service.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87964 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11690
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
and
TASS (M.S.F.)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 150 technicians/craft
assistants in Regional Technical Colleges (R.T.C.) for a sick pay
scheme similar to that which applies in the City of Dublin
Vocational Educational Committee (C.D.V.E.C.) Colleges.
BACKGROUND:
2. In May, 1979, it was agreed that a claim by the Union for
parity of pay and conditions for technicians/craft assistants
employed in the R.T.C.'s with similar workers in the C.D.V.E.C. be
handled by requesting the Labour Court to appoint an independent
assessor to carry out an examination and evaluation of the grades
concerned. Following the assessment, the Court in Labour Court
Recommendation No. 5463 of 6th December, 1979, recommended that
the claim for parity be conceded with effect from 1st July, 1979.
This recommendation was accepted by both sides. An agreement was
drawn up which set down the conditions of service for
technician/craft assistants. The provision with regard to sick
pay reads as follows:
"Sick pay will not be allowed for a greater period than 52
weeks in any continuous period of 4 years at the following
rates. 10 weeks at full pay, additional 26 weeks at half pay
and 16 weeks at quarter pay, less Social Welfare Benefit and
Occupational Injuries Benefits, if any".
Prior to the agreement the sick pay provisions in the R.T.C.'s was
12 weeks in a 12 month period. The sick leave provisions in the
C.D.V.E.C. is 10 weeks at full pay, 26 weeks at half pay and 16
weeks at quarter pay in a 12 month period.
3. The Union claims that while parity of pay and conditions were
agreed, it only became apparent some years later that there was a
difference concerning the sick leave. The Union contends that it
did not agree to the current entitlements, especially given the
fact that prior to 1979, they had a scheme which allowed up to 12
weeks at full pay in any year. The Department indicated that it
was not in a position to concede the claim and on 12th March,
1987, the dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Court. As no agreement was reached at conciliation
conferences held on 4th, 21st May, and 12th December, 1987, the
matter was referred on 21st December, 1987, to the Labour Court
for investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place
on 29th January, 1988.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Labour Court Recommendation, accepted by both sides
was for parity of pay and conditions. The Department have not
implemented the Recommendation by their failure to implement
the sick leave pay and conditions of C.D.V.E.C. in the
R.T.C.'s.
2. At a meeting which took place on 5th February, 1980, between
officials of the Department and the Chief Executive Officers
of the R.T.C.'s the following was minuted under clause 4.9
sick pay and conditions:-
"As the C.D.V.E.C. arrangements were superior to those in the
R.T.C.'s it was not anticipated that the Unions would raise
any objections and it was agreed that the C.D.V.E.C.
arrangements be adopted".
What has in fact happened is a worsening of conditions. The
technicians/craft assistants have gone from a position of 12
weeks full pay per year to a position of 10 weeks full pay
over 4 years.
3. The workers concerned have lost wages as a result of the
poorer sick pay scheme and should be compensated.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Technicians/craft assistants in V.E.C.'s are classified as
non-officers and their conditions are related to those of
non-officers in local authorities. There is a long-standing
well established and accepted relationship between staffs of
V.E.C.s and their counterparts in local authorities.
2. The sick pay arrangements for technicians/craft assistants
in the C.D.V.E.C. form part of a common scheme applicable to
all non-officers employed in the C.D.V.E.C.. This scheme is
the same as that which applies to non-officers in Dublin
Corporation. The C.D.V.E.C. sick leave scheme would appear to
be anomalous being much more favourable than that obtaining in
most other areas of the public service including the local
authorities outside of Dublin (details supplied to the Court).
3. Concession of the claim would be a departure from the
traditional relationship which has existed between V.E.C.'s
and other local authorities, whereby V.E.C.'s have normally
followed the lead of the local authorities rather than the
other way round. It would have wide repercussive effects in
that non-officer grades in V.E.C.'s local authorities and
health boards outside Dublin would be likely to seek similar
entitlement. The Department would be prepared to re-introduce
the pre-1980 arrangements, i.e. 12 weeks full pay per year,
for the technicians/craft assistants.
4. Sick leave arrangements for non-officers (other than
technicians/ craft assistants) employed by V.E.C.'s outside
Dublin provide for 12 weeks on full pay per year. This is the
same as that which applies to non-officers in local
authorities outside Dublin. The application of Dublin
conditions to employees of local authorities and V.E.C.'s
outside Dublin has been resisted by management and has been
upheld by the Labour Court in the past.
5. In considering all claims the Department must have regard
to the 1987 Public Service Pay Agreement, which deals with the
treatment of claims for improvements in pay and conditions.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the terms of the Court's Recommendation of
6th December, 1979, the Court recommends concession of this claim.
This recommendation should be implemented in accordance with
Clause 3.2. of the current Agreement on Pay in the Public Service.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John M. Horgan
_________________________
15th February, 1988. Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.