Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9332 Case Number: LCR14019 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: AN GAISCE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the rates of pay for three workers employed by An Gaisce.
Recommendation:
12. The Court considers it appropriate to state that it
appreciates the detailed and comprehensive submissions made by the
Union in this case. In particular the Court found the appendices
attached which gave an insight into the history of the pay claim
most informative. The Court is of the view that the claimant's
have been treated in a most unsatisfactory manner with regard to
their conditions of employment and it is to their credit that they
have maintained and sustained a high level of commitment.
The result of past mis-management has resulted in this claim now
being pursued before the Court. The Court notes the Employer's
submission that the pay of Chief Executives of bodies such as
Gaisce would normally come within the ambit of the Review Body on
Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. The claim however, is
properly before the Labour Court for adjudication. Despite a
recommendation from a management committee in 1986 which set a
level of remuneration, the Court does not consider that the
salaries as claimed are justified. A more recent agreed
examination by the M.S.U. resulted in much lower levels of salary
being recommended.
Having considered all aspects of the case the Court recommends the
following salary levels on a personal to holder basis for the
three claimants.
Executive Director - Assistant Secretary (max. of scale)
Direction of Training - P.O. (max. of scale)
Office Manageress - Executive Officer (with the agreed
extra duties).
In view of the terms under which they were recruited the Court
considers that both Executive Director and Director of Training
and Marketing should retain the current arrangement as to Company
car.
The Court recommends the above proposal be implemented with effect
from 1/12/92 and be dealt with under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
Finally, the Court recommends that when the review of An Gaisce,
which has been undertaken, has been considered by Government and
its implementation or otherwise determined, a further survey be
sought from the Department of Finance Management Services Unit so
that the terms and conditions for any future appointees would be
quite clear and not subject to the gross procrastination which the
present appointees have been forced to endure.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9332 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14019
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: AN GAISCE
(DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the rates of pay for three workers employed
by An Gaisce.
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1982 the Government approved of the establishment of
a National Award Scheme to be known as Gaisce - the President's
Award. The Scheme was intended to be a programme of activities to
be undertaken by young people between 14 and 25 years of age in
their leisure time. It would be a voluntary programme offering
young people, either individually or in groups, the challenge to
develop personal qualities such as initiative, achievement and
service.
3. The Scheme would be co-ordinated and administered by a
National Award Committee. It would be funded by the private
sector with an initial Government grant of #100,000. An interim
Management Committee was set up in 1983 and an executive director
appointed in 1985. The Scheme was launched in October, 1985 in
five pilot areas and has since spread country-wide with
approximately 5,000 projects currently under consideration for
awards.
4. In 1985 the Interim Management Committee appointed an
Executive Director and a Director of Training and Marketing.
Their salaries and conditions of employment were agreed, with
reviews of salary to take place annually. The workers received
salary increases in 1986 and 1987 respectively. Since 1988 all
appropriate pay round increases have applied (details supplied to
the Court). In 1987 the third worker involved in the claim, was
appointed in a temporary capacity to assist the Office Manageress
who was employed at that time. The Office Manageress left Gaisce
in December, 1989 and the worker concerned has assumed that role
since. She has also received the appropriate pay round increases
since 1988 (details supplied to the Court).
5. The Interim Management Committee was set up to, among other
things, prepare for the establishment of a State Council which
would assume all responsibilities for Gaisce. However because of
certain difficulties this has not happened and Gaisce is currently
administered by the Department of Education. The Interim
Committee was disbanded in 1991.
6. In 1991 the Union lodged a claim on behalf of the 3 workers
seeking the formalisation of their salary scales as follows:
Executive Director - Deputy Secretary Scale (Civil Service)
Director of Training
and Marketing - Principal Officer Scale (Civil Service)
Office Manageress - Higher Executive Officer Scale (Civil
Service).
The Department of Education, with the agreement of the Union,
requested the Management Services Unit (M.S.U.) of the Department
of Finance to undertake a survey of the staffing, organisation and
operations of Gaisce. Its terms of reference were:-
"To examine and evaluate the grading of staff posts in Gaisce
and to make recommendations on the grading of posts relative
to civil service gradings; to examine the operations of
Gaisce and to make recommendations on the future organisation
and staffing of the body".
7. The M.S.U. issued its report in July, 1992 and recommended
posts and gradings as follows:
Executive Director - Principal Officer (standard scale)
Director of Training
and Marketing - Assistant Principal Officer (standard
scale)
Promotions Manager - Higher Executive Officer
(New Post).
In the case of the office administrator the M.S.U. report
considered that the duties of this post were of clerical officer
standard. It recommended that the post be given extra duties
which would increase the level of responsibility to that of
executive officer level.
8. The Departments offered to place the staff concerned on the
following salary rates effective from 1st December, 1992;
Executive Director - Principal Officer (max. of scale)
Director of Training
Marketing - Assistant Principal Officer (max. of
scale)
Office Manageress - Clerical Officer scale at present;
Executive Officer scale when extra
duties taken on.
In the case of the Executive Director and Director of Training and
Marketing a deduction from salary was proposed in respect of use
of Company car in line with recommendations on the use of Company
cars made by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public
Sector (details supplied to the Court).
9. The Union rejected the Department's offer and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 6th October, 1992 (a previous conciliation
conference was held on 11th June, 1991 following which the parties
agreed to the M.S.U. investigation). As no agreement was reached
the Commission, with the consent of the parties, referred the
dispute to the Labour Court on 8th January, 1993 for investigation
and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. Labour Court hearings took place on 9th February and
12th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The development and promotion of Gaisce required personnel
of the highest calibre and the salaries of the two directors
reflected this at the time of their appointments. However
because no proper structure has been established the annual
salary reviews which were promised have not taken place.
Consequently salaries are now less than what they were
originally intended to be.
2. The growth and success of the Award Scheme is attributable
to the hard work and dedication of the staff concerned. As
the Award Scheme has grown, so have the demands and
responsibilities on the staff (details supplied to the Court).
3. The use of Company cars was part of the original offer
made to the Directors. The nature of their work is such that
it involves a considerable amount of travelling outside normal
working hours (examining projects, attending conferences,
presentations of awards etc.). The Department's offer is a
diminution of this condition of employment.
4. The Department's offer constitutes a reduction of the
salaries originally agreed.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The Union's claim is excessive having regard to the duties
and responsibilities of the staff concerned.
2. The salaries would be as recommended in the M.S.U. report
had they been originally linked to civil service grades.
3. The salaries recommended by the M.S.U. report are in line
with salaries payable in similar semi-state bodies.
4. Any increases in excess of those recommended in the M.S.U.
report must be dealt with under Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
RECOMMENDATION:
12. The Court considers it appropriate to state that it
appreciates the detailed and comprehensive submissions made by the
Union in this case. In particular the Court found the appendices
attached which gave an insight into the history of the pay claim
most informative. The Court is of the view that the claimant's
have been treated in a most unsatisfactory manner with regard to
their conditions of employment and it is to their credit that they
have maintained and sustained a high level of commitment.
The result of past mis-management has resulted in this claim now
being pursued before the Court. The Court notes the Employer's
submission that the pay of Chief Executives of bodies such as
Gaisce would normally come within the ambit of the Review Body on
Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector. The claim however, is
properly before the Labour Court for adjudication. Despite a
recommendation from a management committee in 1986 which set a
level of remuneration, the Court does not consider that the
salaries as claimed are justified. A more recent agreed
examination by the M.S.U. resulted in much lower levels of salary
being recommended.
Having considered all aspects of the case the Court recommends the
following salary levels on a personal to holder basis for the
three claimants.
Executive Director - Assistant Secretary (max. of scale)
Direction of Training - P.O. (max. of scale)
Office Manageress - Executive Officer (with the agreed
extra duties).
In view of the terms under which they were recruited the Court
considers that both Executive Director and Director of Training
and Marketing should retain the current arrangement as to Company
car.
The Court recommends the above proposal be implemented with effect
from 1/12/92 and be dealt with under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
Finally, the Court recommends that when the review of An Gaisce,
which has been undertaken, has been considered by Government and
its implementation or otherwise determined, a further survey be
sought from the Department of Finance Management Services Unit so
that the terms and conditions for any future appointees would be
quite clear and not subject to the gross procrastination which the
present appointees have been forced to endure.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
26th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.