Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93419 Case Number: LCR14481 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of a special pay increase to staff transferred from Coillte.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that
the claimants have been disadvantaged in their present
remuneration or treated unreasonably by the employer in the
proposals structuring their future earnings. Accordingly, the
Court recommends that the Union accepts the employer's proposals.
The Court notes the acceptance by the O.P.W. that there may be a
case to answer should the recent special payment be applied by the
previous employer of the claimants.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93419 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14481
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
THE OFFICE OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a special pay increase to
staff transferred from Coillte.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute, which concerns 13 general operatives, arose
following the transfer of the John F. Kennedy arboretum from
Coillte Teoranta to the Office of Public Works (O.P.W.), from
the 1st of January, 1993. Rates of pay in Coillte, including
allowances for specific duties and bonus payments, are
higher than the O.P.W. rates. On the basis that workers
transferred should suffer "no loss", the O.P.W. proposed that
the workers should transfer onto the O.P.W. scale at the
appropriate point, and that the difference between that rate
and their Coillte earnings would be reflected in a "personal
allowance". Difficulties arose in relation to the final
phase of the special pay award to O.P.W. staff, due from the
1st of July, 1993. (This award brought O.P.W. staff onto
Local Authority Rates). The O.P.W. proposes that only basic
pay increases (i.e. National pay awards) should be applied to
the transferred staff, until such time as their rates come
into line with O.P.W. rates. The Union claims that if the
workers are to be on O.P.W. rates, then all O.P.W. increases
should be paid in full, as the workers are no longer eligible
to benefit from increase to Coillte rates, having accepted
the O.P.W. pay structure. The O.P.W's position is that none
of the workers will be less well off than they are at present
and that similar agreements have been reached with employees
taken on in Killarney, Doneraile, Portumna and Coolpark.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on the 4th of May,
1993, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court, on the 12th of July, 1993, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 7th of
June, 1994, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Prior to the establishment of Coillte, its workers were
employed by the Department of Forestry. Both the O.P.W.
and the Department were members of the Joint Industrial
Council for State industrial employees. This Joint
Industrial Council recommended that the latest special
pay increase (#16.04) should be applied at the O.P.W.
If the workers employed at the John F. Kennedy Park were
still employed by the Department, the special increase
would apply to them.
2. On transfer from the Department of Forestry to Coillte
Teoranta in January, 1989, the workers were protected by
Section 43 of the Forestry Act. This Section
guaranteed workers that there would be no change in
their pay or conditions of employment without agreement.
Up to the date these workers were transferred to the
O.P.W. there was no agreement reached at Coillte
Teoranta that would allow for change to their pay,
conditions of employment or relationship with the Joint
Industrial Council.
3. The decision of O.P.W. is unfair to these workers in
that, over time, their gross earnings will be eroded.
The workers were given no option other than redundancy
on transfer to the O.P.W.
4. Workers in Cork did not agree that, on transfer, their
pay would be subject to similar treatment by the O.P.W.
The matter is still in dispute.
5. It is unacceptable that agreement reached in Killarney
should set a precedent which would disadvantage the
workers in John F. Kennedy Park.
6. Pensionable pay is based on gross earnings and any
erosion of gross earnings will have a detrimental effect
on the workers' pensions.
7. The O.P.W. reached agreement with its workers on certain
concessions in return for special pay increases. The
workers in John F. Kennedy will be expected to make the
same concessions without receiving the special
increases.
8. Under legislation concerning the 'transfer of
undertakings', conditions of employment should not be
changed without agreement. In this instance, there was
no agreement on the matter.
O.P.W's ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Against the background of the application of the same
pay scales (details supplied) for general operatives and
drainage workers, the O.P.W. is not prepared to import a
new scale into its grading structure i.e. the Coillte
general operative scale, which would apply to only a
small group of workers. The workers transferring
from Coillte were advised that since they would be
moving from bonus-related employment into non-
bonus-related employment, the O.P.W. could not continue
to pay them bonus. They were advised that they would be
placed on the O.P.W. general operative scale of pay, but
that their existing levels of pay would be preserved.
2. It was made clear to the workers concerned that their
existing pay levels would be preserved by way of a
special allowance which would be equal to the difference
between their existing pay, including bonus and
allowances, and what they would have if all their
service had been in the O.P.W. The allowance would be
personal to the individual concerned. They were also
advised that they would not qualify for any special pay
awards granted to O.P.W. general operatives until such
time as the personal allowance is eroded.
3. In Coillte, bonus and allowances are not paid to workers
on sick-pay, and do not qualify for pension calculation.
Notwithstanding this, the O.P.W. accepted that the
personal allowance would reckon for sick-pay, holiday
pay, overtime, and pension. This represented a
substantial concession to the workers concerned. Both
basic pay and personal allowances will qualify for all
cost of living increases.
4. Former Coillte workers who are no longer in a position
to earn a bonus are paid personal allowances in lieu of
bonus, ranging from #28 to #47 per week more than the
rest of the O.P.W. workers. It was the intention of the
O.P.W. that they should not benefit from special
increases until such time as the differential between
them and the other general operatives is eroded.
Accordingly, the personal allowance payable to these
workers is reduced by the amount of the increase in
basic pay involving special pay awards. This changes
the construction of the pay rates without affecting the
gross pay. (Details supplied to the Court).
5. The O.P.W. has done everything that can be reasonably
done to maintain the living standards of the workers
concerned, while at the same time safeguarding itself
against claims from other workers for the extension of
the same rates to them.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that
the claimants have been disadvantaged in their present
remuneration or treated unreasonably by the employer in the
proposals structuring their future earnings. Accordingly, the
Court recommends that the Union accepts the employer's proposals.
The Court notes the acceptance by the O.P.W. that there may be a
case to answer should the recent special payment be applied by the
previous employer of the claimants.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st June, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
M.K./M.M. _______________
Chairman.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.