FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Subsistence rates for fishery officers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1984, agreement was reached on the introduction of subsistence allowances to all Central Fisheries Board staff. The scheme was based on the Civil Service model which applies different rates of subsistence based on grade and salary. As part of the agreement Rate 'D' was applied to the fishery officer grade.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for the application of Rate 'C' to approximately 150 fishery officers. It argues that the fishery officer grade was incorrectly categorised for subsistence purposes having regard to the banding/salary ranges applicable in the Civil Service Scheme. The Board maintains that the agreement reached in 1984, as part of a comprehensive staff scheme for field grades, placed the fishery officer grade in the 'D' category within the Civil Service Scheme and that the categorisation agreed at that time, clearly had regard to the new field grade structure which was being introduced within the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 9th of December, 1998. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of January, 1999 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of March, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was the Board's intention to introduce subsistence allowances generally based on Civil Service regulations. It should acknowledge that it failed to apply the terms of the Civil Service Scheme.
2. Section 18.9 of the agreement states that the current rates of subsistence payable are based on the Civil Service rates. The rate of allowances is governed by the staff member's grade and scale of salary during the period of his/her absence from base.
3. Management classified the rates of allowances payable according to the worker's grade. It ignored the requirement to classify workers according to grade and salary.
4. It is the Union's understanding that all Civil Service grades are now in receipt of the higher rate of day subsistence. In the circumstances, the Union is seeking that the fishery officer grade be correctly classified and paid the correct rate of allowance effective from the date of the introduction of the subsistence allowances.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management does not accept that a case exists for an improvement in the subsistence level from the 'D' category to the 'C' category.
2. The agreement reached in 1984 as part of the comprehensive staff scheme for field grades, placed the fishery officer grade in the 'D' category within the Civil Service Scheme. The categorisation agreed between the parties at that time clearly had regard to the new field grade structure which was being introduced within the Central and Regional Fisheries Boards. Following this agreed categorisation, the relevant rates have been updated and increased in line with the reference rates in the Civil Service.
3. The agreement on subsistence for field grade staff contained in the 1984 Staff Scheme provided for a number of variations to the Civil Service Scheme itself. These had regard to the nature of the service involved, i.e. a 'field based' service, and the cost implications of subsistence payments to staff who would be regularly away form base. Management at that time sought to limit the amount of financial resources which would have to be directed to subsistence payments. For example, the agreement provides that a day allowance is not payable for an absence at any place within 20 miles of an officer's home or designated base. In the Civil Service Scheme, a day allowance is not payable for an absence at any place within 5 miles of an officer's home or headquarters.
4. Management is concerned about the potential cost implications of concession of the Union's claim. The Fishery Boards are operating within tight financial allocations and regularly seek additional funding to strengthen existing services and develop new initiatives and programmes. The recruitment of staff is very restricted, particularly by the amount of financial resources available each year. Accordingly, the redirecting of these limited financial resources to meet a concession on improved subsistence allowance rates would not be justified or in the best interest of the service. The Court is requested to reject the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the arguments put forward by the parties and is of the view that when the subsistence rates for fishery officers were originally agreed in 1984, there was an understanding by the Union at the time that the rates which were agreed, were the rates which applied in the Civil Service. The nuances, between management's understanding and the Union's, which have emerged since then, were not appreciated until recently.
The Court suggests that both parties have to accept a certain amount of responsibility for the situation which has emerged - management for adopting a very rigid line on its understanding of the subsistence rates beingwithin the rates authorised for the Civil Service; - the Union for not coming forward before now to clarify what has emerged as a misunderstanding.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the situation should be rectified and the subsistence rates as claimed should apply, with effect from the 19th of March, 1998 (the date of the claim).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th April, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.