FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Restoration of allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court involves a claim by the Union on behalf of 2 Heads of Administrative Departments (Finance and Personnel) for a similar type allowance (£2,000) to that recommended by the Labour Court (LCR13273 refers) in respect of Heads of Research Departments. The current allowance is £471.00 per annum.
The Authority claims that the allowance recommended by the Court for Heads of Research Departments was on the basis of their "heightened managerial role" in addition to their core jobs as Research Scientists. It states that the claimants in this dispute have not been asked to take on extra responsibilities and are therefore not entitled to this allowance.
The Union claims that the merger of An Foras Taluntais (AFT) and An Comhairle OiliunaTalmhaiochta (ACOT) has resulted in additional responsibilities and workload for Heads of Administrative Departments and that their positions are now in line with those of Heads of Research Departments and should be given the increased allowance of £2,000. It claims that there has been an increase in the number of grades and unions which the Heads of Administrative Departments have to deal with. Furthermore, the size and complexity of the issues which they now have to deal with on a day to day basis has increased considerably when compared to their previous duties.
The Authority does not accept that there was ever a link between the allowances payable to the Heads of Research Departments and the Heads of Administrative Departments. The allowances are separate and distinct.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 12th May, 1996 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Heads of Administrative Departments have experienced additional responsibilities and workloads as a result of the merger of AFT and ACOT.
2. There has been a significant increase in the administrative workload of the incumbents from 1989 to 1995 in the areas of Expenditure i.e., from £24.0 million to £67.0 million; Net Assets from £14.0 million to £31.0 million; and Staff from 1,100 to 1,500.
3. The Head of Department allowance was introduced for research staff in the early 1960s and was also given to Heads of Administrative Departments. This parity should be maintained.
4. Section 8(5) of the Teagasc Act guaranteed that former AFT and ACOT staff would not suffer any diminution of conditions of employment on transferring to Teagasc. The breaking of parity in this instance is in breach of this guarantee.
AUTHORITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The increase allowances were given to Heads of Research Departments on the basis of improved productivity and implemented on a cost neutral basis.
2. The Heads of Administrative Departments have not been asked to undertake a role inconsistent with their traditional responsibilities. There is no justification therefore to increase the allowance to £2,000.
3. There was never a link between the allowances payable to the Heads of Research and Administrative Departments . The allowances are separate and distinct.
4. A new Director of Administration (Assistant Secretary Level) has been appointed with responsibility for Personnel, Finance and Corporate Affairs.
5. The concession of this claim would have serious financial knock-on effects for the Authority.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions finds that the claimants here concerned have not shown that the changes made in respect of the Administrative Heads are of such significance as to warrant the payment allowance made to the Research Staff as a consequence of the changes in their role.
Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
6th December, 1996______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.