FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOCAL AUTHORITIES (REPRESENTED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Parallel Benchmarking.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the General Operative and related grades employed in 31 Local Authorities outside the Dublin area. It arises within the context of the Parallel Benchmarking Report carried out under the November, 2000 agreement reached between the parties and the Department of Finance. The agreement sets out the arrangements to apply to the G.O. grades. These arrangements provide for a review of the grades concerned by a Joint Working Group (JWG) comprising of representatives of Unions and Employers and chaired by an officer of the Labour Relations Commissions. The review would consist of:
(a) a comprehensive study of the grades in terms of pay and reward structure, roles and duties, conditions of employment,
(b) a report to the JWG by an outside independent expert recommended by the Public Service Benchmarking Body in relation to changes in existing grade structures, changes in work practices, conditions of employment.
In June, 2001 the Public Services Benchmarking Body nominated the consultancy firm Inbucon to carry out a review of the G.O.and related grades. Submissions were received from employers and unions and the consultants' report was issued in March, 2002. Discussions commenced at the JWG on the report's agenda. When agreement was not reached on certain training and development issues the Unions referred those issues to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation (LCR 17437 refers). Following the issue of the recommendation the parties resumed discussions on all issues. The parties failed to reach agreement on the following:
Rank Order
Modernisation/Change Agenda- Verification/Validation Procedure
Annual Leave/Public Holiday Pay
Appeals Forum
Career Structures/Promotional Opportunities
Allowances/Eating on Site/Subsistence
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 14th August, 2003.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Rank Order.The Unions are agreeable to implement the 4 Band Structure as recommended by the Inbucon report on the following basis:
(i) The placing of the Foreman Grade in Band 2
The assignment of Grade 4 and 5 Waterworks Caretaker in Band 1
The assignment of Grade1, 2, & 3 with a 90% relationship with Band 1
The maintenance of the current three tiered Structure for Retained Firefighters-Station Officer, Sub-Officer-Driver Mechanic, Retained Firefighter
Appropriate placing of the Supervisor & Traffic Warden grades
(ii) By not having any grade in Band 2 goes against the concept of reducing the grade to 4, when one is vacant. It also negates a major promotional aspect for G.O and Ganger grades.
(iii) The argument for the placement of Waterworks/Sewerage Caretakers arises from the historic parity with the General Services Supervisor since 1982, which was altered following an Arbitration Finding in 1998. An opportunity was not afforded to seek the renewal of the parity as a result of the PPF and Parallel Benchmarking Exercise.
(iv)The placement of the Sub-Officer and the Retained Firefighter in the same band goes against the finding issued in August, 1999 of the Collective Agreement between the parties, which contained a three Tier Grade within the Service (a 30% differential exists between the two grades). The latest report on the Fire Services issued in 2002 still recommended a three Tier Grading Structure.
2.Modernisation Agenda /Verification Procedure.The Unions are willing to enter negotiations on a Modernisation agenda but not on one which, on the one hand, calls for a reduction in jobs and also demands that staff will cover overtime at Managements' behest.
3.Annual Leave/Public Holidays.The Unions are seeking the payment of either 3 x Time, or 2 x T + 1 day off for Public Holiday duties, in line with other public services.
4.Appeals Forum.The Unions are prepared to accept the principle of a job evaluation system for the staff involved. In doing so and in line with normal practice, staff seeking upgrading and grades seeking movement from band to band would be entitled to process issues through the agreed evaluation system, with a right to appeal.The Unions proposed the training of agreed union/employer representatives to understand and deal with appeals etc., in line with other job evaluation systems.
5.Career Structure/Promotion.The report states that 60% of all grades are at G.O. level . The report indicates that career progression for these grades, along with reducing the number of promotions from 1 in 10 to a lesser figure should be considered.
6.Allowances/Eating on Site/Subsistence.The report recommenced that the eating on site allowance should be brought into line with Dublin County Council (€1,43 to €1.90). The report also recommended a separate examination on the complex issue of allowances and the Unions are prepared to accede to this under an agreed chairperson.
EMPLOYERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Rank Order. (1) The job profiling exercise that produced the rank order compared posts against each other to determine their relative job size, which allowed Inbucon to draw up the rank order of all posts based on job weightings. The rank order is essentially a list of all posts in order of weighting.
(ii) The Unions are seeking to set aside the weighting system set for the grades of Waterworks-Sewerage Caretaker and Foreman grades, and for those to be reinstated in a higher and more favourable position compared with other grades who scored similarly or higher.
(iii) The Job Evaluation Exercise that was used in this exercise is internationally recognised and can be held up to the highest scrutiny. Changing the rank order would have serious repercussive effects for the Parallel Benchmarking process.
2.Modernisation Agenda/Verification Procedure. It was agreed under the Adjustment to the PPF in December, 2000 that one quarter of the increases recommended by the Public Service Benchmarking Body (PSSB) would be paid w.e.f. 1st December, 2001. Under the Sustaining Progress Agreement the balance of the increases recommended by the PSBB would be paid as follows:
50% of the increases from 1st January, 2004
25% from 1st June, 2005
The conditions appertaining to the payment of these increases are dealt with in paragraphs 19.21 19.22 and 19.23 of the SP Agreement.
The November, 2000 agreement specifically stated that discussions would take place to agree changes to work practices. The Unions have refused to discuss any aspect of change or modernisation
In the JWG Management tabled a detailed document setting out what will be required for delivery of these pay increases. The Unions have refused to discuss this document.
3.Annual Leave/Public Holidays.Management consider that an increase in annual leave would be unwarranted and inappropriate. The issue of Public Holidays was not raised by the Unions with the independent expert and is not mentioned in the report.
4.Appeals Forum.Management view the appeals forum as falling within the remit of the Local Authority National Joint Council. The Unions are seeking an appeals mechanism that would be based on the weighting system used by the Inbucon report, while currently rejecting the Rank Order produced by that system.
5.Career Structure/Promotion. The report, while making no formal recommendation regarding these issues suggests that the option of reducing current ratio of Foreman to G.O. grade 1's, (currently standing at 1:10) should be explored. Discussions have not taken place on this issue.
6.Allowances/ Eating on Site/Subsistence.Management propose that, on acceptance of the new agreement, all allowances and additions to basic pay would cease to exist.The new rates of pay applying to the four bands would be inclusive of all allowances and additions to basic pay.
The Unions have sought the equalisation of the eating on site payment. Currently Dublin G.O's are paid at a higher rate than those outside Dublin. The report states that this allowance should be assimilated into basic pay rates.
In relation to other allowances the Unions are seeking a separate study which would identify these additions to basic pay. However, they propose not to include them in any current negotiations as recommended by the report.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court as a result of the failure of the parties to agree on key aspects of the parallel benchmarking report for General Operatives and related grades employed by local authorities.
Whilst a number of disputed issues have been identified in this referral, it is clear that the core difficulty is in relation to the proposed rank order of posts within a restructured grading system. The failure to resolve this difficulty has effectively lead to an impasse in the negotiations, in consequence of which there has been little in the way of meaningful negotiation or discussion on the other disputed aspects of the report. Hence, the Court has decided that it should direct its recommendations at this stage to finding a basis upon which the parties can resume their negotiations and meaningfully engage in relation to the other issues of relevance.
The proposed rank order emerged from a job profiling and evaluation exercise undertaken by consultants appointed by the Public Service Benchmarking Body. The Court accepts (and there is no suggestion to the contrary from any party) that the methodology used in the exercise is internationally recognised and of the highest scientific standards. The unions were fully and appropriately involved in all stages of the process.
Against that background it would be neither possible nor appropriate for the Court to attempt to replicate the work undertaken by the consultants. The Court can only presume that the recommended rank order reflects the appropriate weighting of posts relative to each other and there is no basis upon which the Court could interfere with those conclusions.
Nonetheless, the proposed rank order is not agreed between the parties and, in the absence of agreement on this key matter, the restructuring envisaged cannot proceed at this time. The Court believes the parties should acknowledge this reality and seek an alternative basis upon which to proceed in their negotiations. In the Court's view the only realistic alternative is to proceed on the basis of maintaining the existing grade structure and pay relativity arrangements. In that context it is also necessary to address issues of modernisation and change in return for any increases arising from the application of the analogue review and this should be dealt with in resumed negotiations.
Finally, the Court is of the view that restructuring of the type envisaged in the Parallel Benchmarking Report has the potential to benefit both sides and the parties should consider revisiting the exercise should circumstances permit. This should not ,however, delay the commencement and conclusion of the negotiations referred to above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd September, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.