Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95401 Case Number: LCR14878 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRAL AND REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARDS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Payment of retrospection on parity pay.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions and taking into account the
background and method of assimilation into the Inspector grade,
the Court does not consider that it should recommend concession of
the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95401 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14878
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CENTRAL AND REGIONAL FISHERIES BOARDS
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Payment of retrospection on parity pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The claim relates to the payment of retrospection on pay
parity with Senior Agricultural Officers for Assistant
Inspectors, who acted as Inspectors. The Assistant
Inspectors began "acting up" to the post of Inspector,
without additional compensation, at different dates
between 1987 and 1992. The situation arose from the
introduction by the Boards of a voluntary retirement
scheme in 1987. One of the conditions of the scheme was
that vacancies arising from retirement under the scheme,
could not be filled. The staff concerned, (5), were
formally appointed to the post of Inspector at different
dates between November, 1993 and April, 1994.
2. The post of Inspector is linked to the post of Senior
Agricultural Officer for pay purposes. Due to an
administrative error, this parity was broken from July,
1989 to the extent of 6%. Following discussions,
agreement was reached in 1994 to correct the imbalance
and the 6% was paid to the Inspectors in November, 1994,
including full retrospection to July, 1989.
3. The Regional Fisheries Boards obtained permission from
the Departments of Finance and Marine to pay up to an
additional two increments to the claimants on their
formal promotions to Inspector, in recognition of their
"acting up" service. The increments were over and above
the normal starting pay on promotion. The enhanced
terms were offered and accepted by the individuals
concerned.
4. The claimants, (5), received retrospection to the dates
of their formal appointments, but are claiming
retrospection of the 6% increase from the date of their
"acting up" as Inspectors. The Boards rejected the
claim.
5. As no agreement could be reached between the Union and
the Boards, the dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was
held on 15th June, 1995.
6. As no agreement was possible the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 28th June, 1995, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 16th
August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants have given loyal service for many years
acting in the higher grade of Inspector without being paid
the proper rate for the job. As there are only five
claimants involved, the amount of money being claimed is
very small and should be conceded in full by the
employer.
2. The employer should have paid the 6% to all Inspectors
and Acting Inspectors backdated from 1989. The
claimants were paid the 6% from November, 1993, when
they were formally promoted to Inspector. The claim
will not have repercussive effects.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimants had claimed allowances for "acting up" as
Inspectors over periods from 1987/88 up to 1993. The
claims were referred to the Department of Finance and
the Department of the Marine but were rejected. The
individuals concerned had subsequently been successful
at interview for Inspector posts in 1993.
2. The employer made proposals to the Department of Finance
and the Department of the Marine that the normal
starting pay on promotion should be enhanced in order to
give recognition to the individuals who had "acted up"
as Inspector prior to their promotions. Both
Departments agreed to the addition of one or two extra
increments depending on the "acting up" period for the
individual concerned, in full and final settlement of
the claim. The Departments have indicated that they
will make no further concession on this claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions and taking into account the
background and method of assimilation into the Inspector grade,
the Court does not consider that it should recommend concession of
the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th August, 1995 Evelyn Owens
L.W./A.K. -------------
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.