FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Reporting to Assistant CEO, retrospection, long service increment, allowance, implementation of change, introduction of CFB uniform, car/van logo, restructuring.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns 13 permanent and 3 temporary Senior/Fisheries Environmental Officers (S.F.E.O. s and F.E.O. s) employed by the seven Regional Fisheries Boards.
- The parties commenced discussions in 1997 on a restructuring deal under Clause 2(iii) (a) of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW). They were unable to reach agreement and the issue was the subject of several conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission from March, 2000. It was agreed to refer two issues, reporting relationships and dress code, to an independent facilitator / adjudicator. His report issued in February, 2001. Further conciliation conferences were held, but agreement was not possible.
On the 11th of February, 2002, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing was scheduled for the 7th of May, 2002, but there was a lack of clarity on the precise issues to be dealt with by the Court. The parties returned to conciliation on the 29th of May, 2002, for a final conference and the above issues were then referred to the Court on the 1st of July, 2002. The Court investigated the dispute on the 25th of September, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.There are 13 clauses under Management’s proposals for flexibility and change. The employees have conceded many of them, which more than meet their obligations under the PCW. However, some of the clauses should be revised to include the wording“There will be a partnership approach adopted in reaching agreement which will involve ongoing consultation”(details to the Court).
2. The issue of a freephone service was introduced by Management in their final proposals in June, 2001. This issue requires detailed consideration and discussion and, therefore, should be dealt with separately after the adoption of the PCW agreement.
3. The claimants are willing to make a major concession by reporting to Assistant Chief Executive Officers (ACEOs) with regard to general administrative and financial functions as and when delegated by the Chief Executive Officer. They will not report to them on technical and legal aspects of their work.
4. The Union does not agree with Management’s proposal to eliminate automatic progression from the FEO grade to the SFEO grade. Should automatic progression cease, the job of FEO will not be as attractive as it is currently, and the Board may not be able to retain staff once they gain experience.
5. The Union does not agree with the introduction of uniforms for employees and logos on vehicles. The already difficult job carried out by the FEOs will be undermined and the efficiency and effectiveness of the service they provide will be significantly reduced. It may also place the employees at increased risk of assault.
6. Management’s offer of a single long service increment for FEOs is not acceptable as only three FEOs would gain from the offer. The SFEOs, whose average service at the top of their pay scale is in excess of 12 years, should also receive long service increments.
7. The Union rejects the Board’s proposed monetary settlement in terms of assimilation and pay arrangements, as they are not in accordance with others in the public service. The Union also reserves the right to serve claims in the future arising from the Report of the Expert Group covered in the MLTA (Medical Laboratory Technicians) agreement, as this grade is the marker grade for FEOs.
8. The special allowance paid to the claimants for the provision of emergency cover and response is less than one fortieth of that paid to MLTA marker grades. It is also less than allowances paid to other grades within the fisheries service. The Union is seeking a fair and substantial increase in this allowance.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management has put forward a positive and beneficial pay offer with significant retrospective amounts, in return for co-operation on a range of flexibility/change measures needed in a changing service environment.
2. The Board proposes to introduce the revised pay scales and 50% of the associated arrears following the signing of the agreement by both parties. As all the details associated with the enhancement of the fisheries service have not yet been agreed and are likely to be problematic, it is reasonable to pay the balance of the arrears when all matters are finalised as set out in Section 3 of Management’s final proposal.
3. Management has already concluded a PCW agreement with Technicians and Senior Technicians who historically have been paid on the same salary scale as applies to the FEO and SFEO grades. Concession of the Union’s claim for long service increments for SFEOs would have repercussive effects both inside and outside the organisation.
4. The issue of the freephone service was discussed in early 2000 but the Union wished to deal with this issue separately. At conciliation on the 29th of May, 2002, the Senior Industrial Relations Officer put forward wording which appeared to be acceptable to both sides. However, the Union then withdrew its agreement to it.
5. Management does not accept that S/FEOs should continue to report directly to the CEO with only limited reporting to the ACEO. This issue was dealt with in the facilitator’s report, which sets out a practical and workable way forward.
6. In recent years the Fisheries Boards have intensified their efforts to improve their public image. They operate alongside other state agencies who are clearly identifiable to the public. Staff safety is of paramount importance in the fisheries service and the introduction of formal work clothing and the logoing of Board vehicles will contribute to the safety of environmental staff and will act as a deterrent against assault.
7. The Board has already modified its position during negotiations on some of the changes sought in order to reach agreement with the Union. Further alterations sought by the Union would seriously dilute or obstruct the changes required in the best interests of the service.
8. The pay, restructuring and flexibility/change measures put forward in Management’s final document (details to the Court) are balanced and fair and will bring benefits to the staff and to the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that the Board's final proposals for agreement on Pay and Conditions of FEOS and SFEOS in the Regional Fisheries Boards, including the Facilitator/Adjudicator's report and recommendation dated the 6th of February, 2001, be accepted subject to the following:-
- In relation to the implementation of change, the revised wording recommended by the Senior Industrial Relations Officer on the 29th of May, 2002, which read as follows, should be accepted by both sides:-
"There will be ongoing consultations with staff on the implementation of flexibility and change measures including the introduction of the free phone service".
- Use of Logos on the Board's vehicles to be applied as per the criteria recommended by Labour Court Recommendation No. 16799.
- Agreement by both sides to revisit the issue of long service increments following the resolution of such claims in the public sector.
In return for acceptance of the above, the Court recommends the immediate payment of the full amount of retrospection due to the claimants.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th October, 2002______________________
D.G./MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.