Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95347 Case Number: LCR15132 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL/HORTICULTURAL COLLEGES (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - MR. CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, AND OTHERS;AND OTHERS |
The grading of the Principals of four Private Agricultural Colleges.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, recommends, given
all of the circumstances of this case, that:-
1. The Principals' salary be increased by 3% with effect from
the 1st of April, 1994;
2. The balance be deferred and be considered in the context of
such arrangements as may be in place following the expiry of
the PCW.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95347 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15132
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ASSOCIATION OF AGRICULTURAL/HORTICULTURAL COLLEGES
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
MR. CHRISTOPHER DOUGLAS, AND OTHERS
SUBJECT:
1. The grading of the Principals of four Private Agricultural
Colleges.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of the Principals of
four Private Agricultural Colleges which are funded by
Teagasc, for pay parity with the Principals of Teagasc
Colleges. The claimants, at present, receive remuneration
which is approximately £6,000 less than that of their
counterparts in Teagasc, although they perform duties which
are basically the same, a fact that has been acknowledged by
the Association. The Principals of the Private Colleges do,
however, enjoy better annual leave entitlements. The dispute
was the subject of a conciliation conference under the
auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, in April, 1994,
following which a set of proposals issued. The Department of
Agriculture, Food and Forestry did not object, in principle,
to the proposals. However, it was the Department's view that
the proposals could not be implemented in the context of the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW). A further
conciliation conference followed arising from which the
Association indicated that it was prepared to increase the
claimants' salaries by 3% over the course of the PCW
(amounting to approximately £850 each per annum). The
Association was not, however, prepared to make a commitment
on the concession of parity between the Principals of the
various Colleges on the expiry of the PCW. Agreement was not
reached between the parties and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court, on the 2nd of June, 1995, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court carried out its investigation into the dispute on
the 20th of July, 1995, during which proposals were tabled by
the employer side which, subsequently, were not accepted by
the Principals. The Court completed its investigation on the
1st of April, 1996.
ASSOCIATION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Association is prepared to accept the Labour
Relations Commission proposals, in principle. However,
the proposals can only be implemented within the
provision of the PCW Pay Agreement.
2. While the issue arises from the rate at which Teagasc
recoups State-funded Private Colleges for the cost of
Principals in certain circumstances, the effect of the
claim and the Commission's proposal would be a pay
increase of 21%. Bearing in mind the `No Cost
Increasing Claims' Clause of the PCW Agreement, it can
only be dealt with within Clause 2(iii) of Annex 1 of
the Agreement.
3. Option B under that Clause has a (phased) limit of 3%.
4. Option A allows for agreements relating to structures,
work practices and other conditions which add of the
order of 3% (on a phased basis) to the payroll cost of
the group concerned in return for agreed efficiency and
effectiveness measures. The possibility of generating
offsetting measures to keep payroll costs, in the
present case, within the limit has been explored but no
such measures have been identified.
5. The only possibility in the present case would be that
an increase within the limit of Clause 2, as outlined,
would be given and the balance deferred for
consideration in the context of the whatever pay regime
is to apply after the PCW. While there are obvious
difficulties associated with conceding awards on the
basis that they could be set aside for implementation
after the PCW - that would have the effect of
prejudicing the proper consideration and negotiation of
arrangements to apply after the PCW and run counter to
the certainty of costs which the general agreements are
designed to ensure - the Association would be prepared
to go along with that approach as a exceptional
arrangement in the present case.
PRINCIPALS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The April, 1994 Labour Relations Commission proposals
provide for an allowance to be paid to Private College
Principals in order to bridge the gap between their
remuneration and that of their Teagasc counterparts. In
return, annual leave for Private College Principals
would be the same as that of Teagasc College Principals.
The mechanism for the implementation of this would be
for Teagasc to decide, and while they claim the
agreement must be implemented within the terms of the
PCW, there are ample scope and precedents for them to
propose an implementation that is acceptable.
2. There are strong arguments in favour of implementation:-
- Teagasc has conceded the claim on its merits;
- Further increased productivity since the date of
the claim should satisfy any conditions of national
pay agreements (details supplied to the Court);
- The claim predates the PCW and the PESP. Teagasc
has already conceded two such claims on the basis
of a `past the post' argument.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, recommends, given
all of the circumstances of this case, that:-
1. The Principals' salary be increased by 3% with effect from
the 1st of April, 1994;
2. The balance be deferred and be considered in the context of
such arrangements as may be in place following the expiry of
the PCW.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th April, 1996 Tom McGrath
M.K./D.T. __________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.