FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : F�S - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Incremental pay scale. 2. Future pay relativity with Managers In Community Training Workshops.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns Community Employment Scheme Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors. In November 1998, the Labour Court issued recommendation No LCR16000 which dealt with the pay of Community Employment Scheme Supervisors and Assistant Supervisors employed by Community Employment Schemes. The schemes are grant aided by F�S and are funded by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. LCR16000 was issued following a report on the pay of CE Supervisors by a Technical Assessor appointed by the Court. In LCR16000, the Court recommended in relation to paragraphs (g), (h) and (l) as follows:
"(g) Supervisors and Assistants who move to another scheme will retain their point of scale on a personal basis if the scheme to which they transfer falls into the lower paid category. If the scheme is the same size or bigger, they will retain their point of scale and progress on through the incremental scale.
(h) Where the size of scheme is reduced below the threshold by F�S, the Supervisor will retain his or her rate at their existing point of the scale on a personal to holder basis.
(l) The future pay linkages for Supervisors will be with the Managers in Community Training Workshops. However, this relationship will apply only after the expiry date of Partnership 2000 and excluding any increase to the comparator grade under the 2% "Special" Clause in Partnership 2000 even if the amount exceeds 2%."
The Unions claim that F�S has not implemented these items of the recommendation.
F�S rejected the claim. The Unions sought to refer the issues to the Labour Relations
Commission but F�S declined an invitation to attend a Conciliation Conference. On the
4th December, 2000, the Unions referred the dispute to the Labour Court under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's
recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 1st March, 2001.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
Incremental Pay Scale.
In LCR16000 the Court recommended:
3. 1. "(a) Retention of the two scale system i.e. Supervisors on schemes with less than 15 participants to be on a lower rate of pay and Supervisors on schemes with more than 15 participants to be on a higher rate of pay.
(g) Supervisors and Assistants who move to another scheme will retain their point of scale on a personal basis if the scheme to which they transfer falls into the lower paid category. If the scheme is the same size or bigger, they will retain their point of scale and progress on through the incremental scale.
(h) Where the size of the scheme is reduced below the threshold by F�S, the Supervisor will retain his or her rate at their existing point of the scale on a personal to holder basis."
2. The government decided in 1999, to restructure Community Employment Schemes
to take account of falling unemployment levels. Restructuring was a strategic shift in
policy towards greater investment in training provision and a more effective way of
addressing the remaining level of unemployment. The process involves a gradual
reduction in the number of Community Employment places from 40,000 in
September 1998, to 28,000 by the end of 2003. This policy will have a direct effect
on the number of Supervisors employed and will restrict the ability of the
Supervisor to retain or recruit a minimum of 15 participants. Accordingly, what was
intended to be an incremental pay scale has now become "non incremental".
Supervisors can no longer progress up the scale due to a policy decision that is
outside of their control.
3. The Court recommended that the Community Employment Supervisor should be
linked for pay purposes to the Manager in Community Training Workshops.
Accordingly, the Unions are claiming that the Supervisors should now have an
incremental pay scale similar to that grade, based on service, not on the number of
participants.
Future Pay Linkages for Supervisors
4. 1. Labour Court Recommendation No. 16000 recommended as follows:
(1) "The future pay linkages for Supervisors will be with the Manager in Community Training Workshops. However, this relationship will apply only after the expiry date of Partnership 2000, and excluding any increase to the comparator grade under the 2% "Special" Clause in Partnership 2000, even if that amount exceeds 2%. "
The Unions sought to resolve this issue by direct discussions with the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and F�S to no avail.
2. The following are the relevant pay scales for comparison purposes at 1st October, 2000:
Community Employment Supervisor (with 15 or more participants) 1. �17,139 2. �18,315 3. �19,490 4. �20,664 | Manager Community Training Workshop 1. �18,934 2. �20,705 3. �22,476 4. �24,247 5. �26,018 6. �27,789 7. �29,560 |
 | |
3. The role of the Supervisor is to develop the skills and knowledge of scheme workers, to assist in their personal development and in acquiring employment. Many of the scheme workers come from socially deprived backgrounds and need a wide range of instruction, which is not confined to imparting merely practical skills. More emphasis is now put on literacy, numeracy, life and social skills which entails considerable extra work, effort and responsibility. The success of Community Employment is dependent on the Supervisors. The Deloitte and Touche Report recognised the pivotal role the Supervisor has in holding the programme and project together.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. LCR16000 made specific recommendations which stipulated the scales of pay to be paid to Community Employment Supervisors and established a future linkage for Community Employment Supervisors with Managers in Community Training Workshops. This recommendation was accepted and implemented in full.
2. F�S has participated in the process outlined above as recommended by the Court
without any imputation of employer liability. Community Employment Supervisors are employed by Sponsoring Committees. F�S is not their employer. It provides grant aid to the sponsors of the various schemes with funds provided by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. F�S considers the issues referred have been dealt with in full.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court issued Recommendation No. LCR16000 against the background of extensive discussions, facilitated by the Court appointed Assessor and involving the Unions, F�S and the relevant Government Departments. The report submitted to the Court by the Assessor had been agreed by all parties as providing a fair basis on which the pay of CE supervisors could be determined into the future. This report was adopted by the Court and set out in Recommendation LCR16000.
In essence the issues now before the Court involve an interpretation of two aspects of the agreement reached between the parties with the Assessor's assistance and subsequently incorporated in LCR16000. In the Court's view the agreed position in respect of both issues is clear and can be clarified as follows:
Progression on Scales.
Separate scales were established depending on whether the scheme had 15 participants and over, or less than 15 participants. Where the number on a scheme fell to under 15, the agreed arrangement was that the supervisor would retain his/her existing point on the > 15 scale on a personal to holder basis {point (h) of the Recommendation}
Pay Relationship
The salary scales to apply to CE supervisors were those set out in Appendix A of the recommendation. Point (1) of the recommendation was intended to provide a mechanism by which future adjustments to those scales would be determined. What was agreed was that there would be a pay linkage with the Managers in Community Training Workshops. In practice, this was intended to mean that all increases, post Partnership 2000, which applied to the pay of the linked grade would be applied, at the same percentage rate, to the pay of CE supervisors.
It was never intended that the agreed scales would be re-negotiated at the end of Partnership 2000, nor was it agreed that there would be pay parity with those rates.
Based on the above the Court accepts that the terms of Recommendation LCR16000 have been fully and correctly applied.
As stated by it in its previous Recommendation, the Court accepts that F�S does not have any employer- related responsibility in respect of CE supervisors. The Court notes, however, the continuing absence of any central forum through which the Unions can engage in discussions or negotiations on industrial relations issues concerning these employees.
The Court believes that this is an unsatisfactory situation and would propose that the Unions and F�S discuss the feasibility of putting in place a representative body with which industrial relations business could be conducted in future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd March, 2001______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.