Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92264 Case Number: LCR13674 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for the payment of an acting allowance to eleven workers who carried out the duties of Chief Agricultural Development Officer.
Recommendation:
5. The court having considered the submissions of the parties
considers the claim of the Union should be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Collins Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92264 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13674
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TEAGASC
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for the payment of an acting allowance to
eleven workers who carried out the duties of Chief Agricultural
Development Officer.
BACKGROUND:
2. Prior to the establishment of Teagasc in 1988, A.C.O.T. was
required under the relevant Acts to make available to each County
Committee of Agriculture the services of a Chief Agricultural
Development Officer (C.A.D.O.) to act as secretary and accountant
to each Committee. Under an agreement negotiated in 1984 an
acting allowance was paid to workers acting as C.A.D.O.s. On the
establishment of Teagasc the County Committees of Agriculture were
dissolved and the payment of the acting allowance was
discontinued. The Union claimed the acting allowance on behalf of
the workers concerned who were acting C.A.D.O.'s between 1987 and
1991. Management rejected the claim. The issue was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission on the 6th December, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on the 18th March, 1992 but no
agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 27th April, 1992.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 26th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The agreement negotiated in 1984 provided that workers who
carried out the duties of a C.A.D.O. in an acting capacity,
would receive an acting allowance. The C.A.D.O. is the
highest promotional post covered under the Staff Scheme for
Agricultural Development Officer grades. The duties of a
C.A.D.O. are clearly outlined in the Staff Scheme (details
supplied to the Court). The workers concerned carried out the
duties of a C.A.D.O. as directed by Teagasc and in accordance
with the Staff Scheme. At a conciliation conference which was
held in 1990 Teagasc did not dispute that an allowance was due
to the claimants under existing agreements. This conciliation
conference was adjourned to allow Teagasc to pursue the issue
with the relevant Government Departments with a view to making
the appropriate payments. A similar commitment was given to
the Union by the Company in a letter dated 1st August, 1990
(details supplied to the Court). Since then, despite the
Union's raising of the issue on numerous occasions, Teagasc
has not paid the allowance to the workers concerned. It is
unacceptable to the Union that agreements freely entered into
can be ignored by Management.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. On the establishment of Teagasc the County Committees of
Agriculture were dissolved and the statutory duties of Chief
Agricultural Officer ceased to exist. The post of Chief
Agricultural Development Officer continued to exist but
without the duties to the County Committees of Agriculture, or
the legal obligation for Teagasc to provide a manager to carry
out the duties of a Chief Agricultural Officer.
2. In the period immediately prior to the establishment of
Teagasc all staff appointed to higher grades on an acting
basis, were advised in writing that it would not be possible
to pay them an acting allowance. While the Unions reserved
their position on the non-payment of acting allowances, they
did not oppose the appointments which could never have been
made by Management except on the basis that acting allowances
could not be paid.
3. Because of the legal requirement under the 1977 Act that
C.A.D.O.'s be provided to perform certain duties for the
County Committees of Agriculture, Teagasc is prepared to pay
an appropriate acting allowance to staff appointed to acting
C.A.D.O. posts up to the dissolution of the Committees in
September, 1988.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The court having considered the submissions of the parties
considers the claim of the Union should be conceded.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
4th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.