FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for the payment to the workers of the allowances similar to those agreed for Chief Agricultural Officers (CAO) and College Principals.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of 33 Grade 3 workers working for Teagasc in their country office and college locations. The Union is seeking an allowance similar to that granted to the country office managers. The claim has been ongoing for a number of years and has shifted from a regrading claim to being focused on an allowance claim. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of October, 2001, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of December, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The increase in the scope and scale of responsibilities for the grade in recent years is huge. This increase at least matches that recognised for their bosses in the CAO's and College Principals. The responsibility for dealing with the external auditor particularly in respect of EU funds rest solely with the Grade 3 workers.
2. There is a moral obligation on Teagasc to treat this group of managers in at least as good terms as they treat the CAO's and Principals.
3. The cost neutral aspect is very real and achievable with the huge downturn in applicants to Teagasc, and Teagasc funded Colleges.
4. The funding Department can hardly justify standing in its way as they have recently regraded all their Service Administrative staff in their District Offices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim for payment of similar allowances to the claimants, as recently agreed for the CAO's and College Principals, is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of the Programme for Productivity and Fairness.
2. The posts of the claimants were comprehensively reviewed in 1996 by the Centre for Management and Organisation Development (Department of Finance) and the grading of the claimants was considered to be appropriate.
3. Any concession to the claimants would result in consequential claim from other staff.
4. It is only five years since the last major review of clerical/administrative structures in Teagasc and this would compare very favourably with the frequency of review in other public sector organisations.
5. The complexity of the Grade 3 work has not changed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, upholds the case made by the employer, that this claim is in breach of the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
However, in arriving at that decision, the Court is concerned that discussions were allowed proceed over a lengthy period in a climate that appeared to indicate to the claimants that options might be available to facilitate this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
3rd January, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.