FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Implementation Of Clause 2(iii) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Commissioners of Irish Lights are the General Lighthouse Authority for Ireland and are responsible for maintaining marine aides to navigation around the coast of the whole island. Irish lights are jointly managed by the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources (Dublin) and the Department of the Environment (London).
The dispute concerns the Union's claim under clause 2 (iii) of the PCW on behalf of 7 electronic technicians, employed by the Commissioners at their lighthouse depot in Dun Laoghaire. The electronic technician grade (ET) traditionally has a link with the clerical officer/executive officer grades in Irish Lights. Management claims that this linkage was confirmed in 1989 when two long service increments were added to the scale on the understanding that it was accepted that the new scale placed the electronic technicians at the correct level within the Irish Lights pay structure.
The initial offer made by Irish Lights under Clause 2(iii) of the PCW provided for an increase of 3.5% and this was accepted by the Public Service Executive Union who represent the clerical officer and executive officer grades. The electronic technician scale was similarly adjusted at that time. IMPACT did not represent the workers concerned during the lifetime of the PCW. Subsequently it was shown that the average increase in the Public Service was 5.5% and sanction was given by the Department of Finance to pay the additional 2% across the board. This was conditional on measurable productivity and flexibility being achieved. The Unions representing staff with the exception of IMPACT accepted the 'topping up' increase.
On the 4th of November, 1999, IMPACT submitted a claim in the context of concluding its claim under the PCW as follows:
1. That the second ICS LSI (Irish Civil Service Long Service Increment) be included in determining the maximum of the ET grade.
2. That 25% of the cadre of ETS i.e. (2 officers) be placed on a higher scale 3% in value above the standard scale exactly in line with the ICS agreement.
3. Agreement be backdated as applied in the Civil Service.
The Union argues that Management has only applied part of the Civil Service Agreement
in that only one long service increment (3 years) has been awarded to the EO/HEO
grades.
Management rejects the claim. It argues that it would be impossible to contain the
cost of the claim within 5.5% of payroll and the revised award of 5.5% was granted on
the basis that it would apply to all staff grades and was accepted by the other staff
unions on this basis.
The matter was the subject of two conciliation conferences held under the auspices of
the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of April, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of August,
2000. Following the Court hearing both parties submitted additional information to
the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has negotiated deals under Clause 2 (iii) of the PCW across the Public Service and its experience is that management's position in relation to the electronic technicians is unique and unsustainable. It has been common for different groups within an employment to settle Clause 2(iii) in different ways.
2. There are no real career advancement opportunities for the workers and the Union's claim is structured in such a way so as to make it more beneficial in terms of the workers careers/pensions.
3. The Union cannot understand how concession of this claim within the cost parameters of 5.5% could reopen the PCW for other groups employed by Irish lights.
4. The only reopening of claims under PCW was processed nationally where in the context of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness early settlers will receive an increase of 3% with effect from the 1st of October, 2000.
COMMISSIONERS ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreed pay structure for electronic technicians provides for links with Irish Lights grades and not Irish Civil Service Grades. It also provides for long service increments which were conceded in 1989 to acknowledge the fact that electronic technicians could spend considerable time on the maximum of the scale. This arrangement is unique in Irish Lights.
2. The electronic technicians accepted the 1989 agreement on the understanding that the new salary scale placed them at the correct level within the Irish Lights Staff Structure.
3. The Commissioners final offer under Clause 2(iii) of the PCW was exactly the same for all grades. Approval to make the offer was only granted on that basis. The other staff unions accepted, however reluctantly, that in view of the small numbers and staff profile, restructuring was not a realistic option. After exhaustive negotiations they accepted the offer in good faith on the basis that it was the best available.
4. IMPACT was granted negotiating rights in July, 1999 and submitted a claim on behalf of electronic technicians in November, 1999, at which stage agreement had been reached and the award implemented in respect of all other staff grades. Any variation from a straightforward award of 5.5% would create serious industrial relations difficulties with the unions concerned.
5. Following a review of Engineering Maintenance Management Strategy and Procedures in the Service, the consultants final report was issued in July 2000. Fundamental changes in the manner in which aids to navigation are maintained have been recommended and this will impact on all grades within the engineering function. In such circumstances the creation of a higher grade for electronic technician would not be sanctioned by the Board or the two sponsoring Government Departments.
6. The Commissioners offer under Clause 2(iii) of the PCW is the best and most equitable that can be achieved, given the staff profile within the Service and the strict budgetary controls within which they must operate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties and to the further information supplied following the hearing.
Clause 2(iii) of PCW has been applied in a uniform manner to all staff of the Commissioners by agreement with the Unions representing the vast majority of staff. In these circumstances the Court does not consider it appropriate to recommend an alternative method of implementation in respect of the claimant grade. Furthermore, the Court is not convinced that the Union's proposals can be accommodated within the parameters of the PCW Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24 August, 2000
FB/SH
______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.