Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91505 Case Number: LCR13487 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for an increase in unsocial hours allowance payable to fishery officers, assistant inspectors and inspectors.
Recommendation:
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
considers that the Union has established a prima facie case for an
increase in the "unsocial hours" allowance. However, the Court is
not in a position to quantify what that increase should be because
the parties alone are privy to the basis on which the allowance
was calculated in the first instance (1984) as an alternative to
the terms recommended by the Court in Recommendation: No. LCR 5500
dated 31-12-79. It is the impact of changes affecting the
original basis that is now at issue.
The Court considers that the Board should accept that an
adjustment of the allowance is now appropriate and should commence
realistic negotiation with the Union to determine what that
increase should be. Matters which should be considered include:-
- the effect of salary increases.
- the effect of staff reductions.
- the effect of the 39 hour week.
These matters, along with any other relevant aspects, should be
factually quantified in relation to the original situation that
existed when the allowance was introduced. The negotiations
should commence without delay and should be concluded by the end
of February, 1992.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91505 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13487
THE LABOUR COURT
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
PARTIES: CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for an increase in unsocial hours
allowance payable to fishery officers, assistant inspectors and
inspectors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Central Fisheries Board replaced the Inland Fisheries
Trust and the Boards of Conservators under the terms of the
Fisheries Act, 1980. It is responsible for the protection,
conservation and development of fisheries, fish stock and inland
and costal waterways.
3. The parties have been involved in discussion for some time
over the renegotiation of a staff scheme (comprehensive agreement)
covering the field staff employed by the Board. There are a
number of issues in dispute including unsocial hours allowance.
This allowance was established following the issue of Labour Court
recommendation LCR 5500 which recommended overtime payments for
hours worked outside normal working hours (details supplied to he
Court). In negotiations at local level following the issue of the
recommendation it was agreed to introduce a fixed payment. The
allowance was £1,481 per annum when first negotiated. The present
annual payment is £1,858 per annum.
4. In 1986 discussions opened to review the staff scheme for
field grades. The Union sought an increase of £20 a week in the
unsocial hours allowance as part of the review. The claim was
rejected by the Board who viewed that the allowance was adequate
for the extent of the unsocial hours then being worked. The issue
was not actively pursued because of a number of factors until
April, 1991. At a meeting on 8th April, 1991 three key issues,
including the unsocial hours allowance, were identified as central
to the review of the staff scheme.
5. The Union wished to process the claim for an increase in the
unsocial hours allowance separately while the Board's position is
that it should be dealt with within the overall review of the
staff scheme. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on 8th July, 1991. Conciliation conferences were held
on 24th July, 1991 and 6th August, 1991. The Union's present
claim is to have the allowance increased to 25% of basic pay and
for payment for public holidays. The Board indicated that it was
sympathetic to the claim but was unable to make any concession as
sanction was not forthcoming from the Departments of Marine and
Finance. With the consent of the parties, the Commission referred
the issue to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Court hearing was held on 23rd October 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Due to the Government's embargo staff numbers have been
reduced with a consequent increase in responsibilities
and unsocial hours attendance (details supplied to the
Court).
2. The workers did not get any benefit from the
implementation of the 39 hour week. As no overtime is
paid and there has been an increase in the liability to
work unsocial hours the workers are now working more
time for less money.
3. Originally the unsocial hours allowance was 18.4% of the
maximum point of the fishery officer's scale. This has
now decreased to 15% despite the increased liability of
unsocial hours attendance.
4. There is a disparity in the relative value of the
allowance as between the various grades. At the time of
the original negotiations the liability of supervisory
grades for unsocial hours attendance was not as great
as it is now. This has come about as a result of the
reduction in staff numbers which has increased the field
work undertaken by these grades.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers received a special pay award of 15% back
dated to July, 1989 as a result of a relativity claim
with agricultural officers. This has distorted the
relationship which percentages type allowances had to
basic pay. The special pay award was made without an
increase in productivity being given.
2. The Board is not in a position to concede the Union's
claim, as sanction is not forthcoming form the
Departments of Marine and Finance.
3. The basis for the payment of the allowance should be
strictly related to the level of the actual hours worked
and the Board has indicated its willingness to approach
could be be addressed under a review of the sfaff
scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court
considers that the Union has established a prima facie case for an
increase in the "unsocial hours" allowance. However, the Court is
not in a position to quantify what that increase should be because
the parties alone are privy to the basis on which the allowance
was calculated in the first instance (1984) as an alternative to
the terms recommended by the Court in Recommendation: No. LCR 5500
dated 31-12-79. It is the impact of changes affecting the
original basis that is now at issue.
The Court considers that the Board should accept that an
adjustment of the allowance is now appropriate and should commence
realistic negotiation with the Union to determine what that
increase should be. Matters which should be considered include:-
- the effect of salary increases.
- the effect of staff reductions.
- the effect of the 39 hour week.
These matters, along with any other relevant aspects, should be
factually quantified in relation to the original situation that
existed when the allowance was introduced. The negotiations
should commence without delay and should be concluded by the end
of February, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
28th November, 1991 ------------------
M.D./N.M.
Chairman