Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94337 Case Number: LCR14575 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for the payment of an information technology (I.T.) allowance.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
outlined in their oral and written submissions, given all the
circumstances of the case, does not find grounds for concession of
the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94337 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14575
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
NATIONAL ROADS AUTHORITY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for the payment of an information
technology (I.T.) allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Union is pursing a claim for the application of an
information technology allowance to two of its members
employed in the information technology (IT) unit of the
Authority (formerly the Environmental Research Unit).
The claim is based on the fact that an I.T. allowance is
paid to Executive Officers (EO) and Higher Executive
Officers (HEO) employed full-time on I.T. work in the
Civil Service and the fact that the 2 workers covered in
the claim are in grades linked to the EO and HEO grades
for pay and other conditions. The claim was lodged in
October, 1990.
2. The Authority was rejected the claim on the basis that
the "lump sum gratuities" are paid annually to workers
in the civil service who satisfy all 6 criteria set out
in paragraph 3 of the Appendix to General Council Report
1175. One of the criteria is a judgement by management
that in each case the payment is necessary to retain the
individual in the I.T. area. The sixth criterion was
set out as follows:
"Management will have to be satisfied that the
making of the additional payment is essential to
ensure that the availability of the skill/expertise
in question to the service will not be put at risk.
The making of a payment in any particular case will
be at the discretion of management".
The Authority was satisfied that the availability of the
necessary I.T. skills was not in jeopardy and that it
was not necessary to pay the allowance.
3. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference was held on
15th April, 1994. There are 2 workers covered by the
claim. Worker 1 was employed as Data System Manager on
a grade analogous to the HEO grade until September, 1991
when he was promoted. Worker 2 was appointed in 1988
and has worked solely in the I.T. area. In the case of
Worker 1 the Union is claiming the allowance in respect
of his service between July 1989 and September, 1991 and
in the case of Worker 2 in respect of her service since
July 1989.
4. It was not possible to resolve the claim through
conciliation and it was referred to the Labour Court
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990 on 20th June, 1994. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 26th September, 1994 (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Council Report 1175 states that the official side
acknowledged that at these grade levels "a high degree
of skill and expertise" is required. The official side
was, therefore, prepared to consider a system of
additional payments in certain circumstances This was
to ensure that the skills and expertise were developed
and retained in the I.T. area . There is no mention in
the report or its appendix that payment will be made
only if key staff in the I.T. area leave.
2. The I.T. unit in the Authority is a small effective
unit (details supplied) and there is a limited number of
staff affected. The claimant workers should receive the
same treatment as their colleagues in Bord Failte and
Forfas (details supplied).
3. In the comparable grades in the civil service, it was
decided that the allowance was payable provided that the
conditions attached to the allowance were fulfilled.
The claimants fulfil the criteria for payment of the
allowance.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The allowance is a retention allowance introduced at a
time when large numbers of staff with I.T. experience
were leaving the civil service to take up employment
elsewhere. The retention criterion was a fundamental
condition to the granting of the allowance. There is no
similarly between the circumstances which obtain in the
Authority and those which obtained in the civil service
at the time of the introduction of the additional
payments. The Labour Court has previously accepted this
argument in an investigation involving the Computer
Services Board (details supplied).
2. The scheme as it operates in the civil service is under
review and this review will have to consider the future
role of the payments in the light of the fact that the
mobility of staff in the I.T. industry generally has
diminished drastically since the scheme was first
introduced In addition, the scheme has not been
extended outside the grades for which it was originally
negotiated. The Authority would contend that the
grading structure which applies in the I.T. area is not
comparable to the civil service grades.
3. It would be contrary to the pay agreements commencing
with the P.N.R. and extending through the P.E.S.P. and
the P.C.W. to process this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties as
outlined in their oral and written submissions, given all the
circumstances of the case, does not find grounds for concession of
the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
13th October, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.