Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95491 Case Number: LCR14959 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TEAGASC - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Incremental credit for three staff members.
Recommendation:
The Court is of the view that had the Chadwick Review not been
undertaken, the claimants would have been appointed to the higher
grades as they took up their appointments. The individuals should
not be penalised as a result of the length of time taken to bring
the exercise to a conclusion, particularly as they were performing
the new duties without the financial benefit for an unreasonably
long period.
Having considered the written and oral submissions, and taking
into account the uniqueness of this case, the Court makes the
following recommendations:
1. The employer's offer in relation to ex-gratia payments as
outlined in the submission to the Court be accepted by the
Union, but the periods for payment to be adjusted as follows:
Period
Worker No. 1 8th Sept 1991 - 1st July 1994
Worker No. 2 11th Sept 1990 - 1st July 1994
Worker No. 3 14th Jan. 1991 - 1st July 1994
2. The 3 claimants be placed on the appropriate incremental
point of the relevant scales that they would now be on had
they been promoted on the original date of appointment.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95491 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14959
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
TEAGASC
AND
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
Incremental credit for three staff members.
BACKGROUND:
The Claim by the Union is on behalf of three of its members
who were carrying out higher duties without payment for a
period of time. The Union is seeking acting
allowances/incremental credit for the three workers.
Worker No. 1 is Principal of Kildalton Agricultural College
and is graded at Chief Agricultural Development Officer
(CADO). Worker No. 2 is Principal of the College in the
Botanic Gardens and is graded at Senior Agricultural
Development Officer (SADO). Worker No. 3 is Assistant
Principal of the Agricultural College in Athenry and is
graded at SADO.
Worker No. 1 was appointed to the post on 13th September,
1991. At the time he was graded at Agricultural Development
Officer level (ADO) (the grading structure at TEAGASC is ADO,
HADO, SADO, CADO). In 1990, the Union lodged a claim on
behalf of Worker No. 2 to upgrade his post to CADO. The
claim was the subject of Labour Court Recommendation No.
13031 which recommended that the job be reviewed as a matter
of priority as part of an overall IPA examination (The
Chadwick Report) of the professional career structure. In
January, 1991, Worker No. 3 was assigned to his duties in
Athenry. He was appointed to the post in February, 1994.
The Chadwick Report was completed in March, 1991, and
recommended a considerable number of promotions in Teagasc.
A number of local level meetings took place in 1993 and 1994.
On the 7th April, 1994, a meeting was held to finalise
proposals. The Union claims that the following was agreed:
* The Chadwick promotions will end the period where the 3
workers are undertaking higher duties without payment.
* An honoraria equivalent to the higher duties allowance
will be paid from the date of appointment to the College
positions up to the Chadwick promotions. In the case of
Worker No. 2 this will date from the Labour Court
Recommendation. These will be paid without delay once
the promotions have taken place.
* The three staff will be placed on the incremental point
which they would have reached if the promotions had
taken place on the original date of appointment.
* Depending on the outcome of certain CAO "Acting" cases,
the Union reserves the right to pursue the previous 3
years where Worker No. 3 was carrying out Assistant
Principal duties in Athenry.
The first phase of the Chadwick promotions took place on 1st
July, 1994. The Union claims that Management did not honour
the Agreement of 7th April, 1994.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 19th December,
1994. No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 23rd August, 1995, in accordance with
Section 26(1), Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court hearing took place on 16th October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. At the conciliation conference on 19th December, 1994, the
Industrial Relations Officer recommended strongly in favour
of the agreement of 7th April, 1994, being implemented. No
honoraria was paid and the 3 workers were placed on the
incremental point applicable to July, 1994, instead of their
original dates of appointment.
2. There is a long-standing arrangement in the Public Service
for payment of allowances for the performance of duties at a
higher grade. The 3 workers concerned were carrying out
duties of a higher grade. The Public Service now recognises
the principle of incremental credit for temporary service.
If the Agreement of 7th April, 1994, is not honoured, the 3
workers will receive no incremental credit for work
performed.
3. Two previous Labour Court Recommendations, LCR 13674 and LCR
14846, recommended payment of an acting allowance to workers
who carried out duties of a higher grade. Department of
Finance circulars 21/74 and 29/80 also provide for payment of
same.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Management is prepared to award ex-gratia payments to the 3
workers which would amount to the equivalent of an allowance
from the date of appointment until the date of the final
offer being made in the case of Workers No. 1 and 3 and from
the completion date of the Chadwick Report until its
implementation in the case of Worker No. 2. The dates are as
follows:-
Worker No. 1 8th September, 1991 - 13th May, 1993.
Worker No. 2 11th March, 1991 - 13th May, 1993.
Worker No. 3 14th January, 1991 - 13th May, 1993.
2. Workers No. 1 and 3 were offered, and accepted, their present
positions in September and January 1991 respectively, without
any change in pay rates or grading. The delay in
implementing the Chadwick 'deal' was due to further
negotiations which resulted in additional promotions being
offered. This was understood by all parties. The present
dispute is undermining the deal.
3. Incremental credit for periods of higher duties performance
is never granted in the Civil Service. There would be
serious repercussions throughout the Public Service if it was
awarded in this dispute.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that had the Chadwick Review not been
undertaken, the claimants would have been appointed to the higher
grades as they took up their appointments. The individuals should
not be penalised as a result of the length of time taken to bring
the exercise to a conclusion, particularly as they were performing
the new duties without the financial benefit for an unreasonably
long period.
Having considered the written and oral submissions, and taking
into account the uniqueness of this case, the Court makes the
following recommendations:
1. The employer's offer in relation to ex-gratia payments as
outlined in the submission to the Court be accepted by the
Union, but the periods for payment to be adjusted as follows:
Period
Worker No. 1 8th Sept 1991 - 1st July 1994
Worker No. 2 11th Sept 1990 - 1st July 1994
Worker No. 3 14th Jan. 1991 - 1st July 1994
2. The 3 claimants be placed on the appropriate incremental
point of the relevant scales that they would now be on had
they been promoted on the original date of appointment.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th November, 1995 Finbarr Flood
C.O.N./A.K. ---------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.