FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - AMICUS - MSF DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Increase to an allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a worker who is employed by Teagasc at the National Food Centre. He is currently paid the Principal Experimental Officer salary scale. Prior to 1987 the worker was employed by the IIRS and Eolas which subsequently became part of Teagasc. Prior to the transfer taking place the worker had been found suitable for promotion but had not been promoted due to the embargo in place in the public service at the time. At the time of the transfer the worker sought to have the promotion implemented in Teagasc. The Employer did not consider that he met the requirements for promotion to Senior Research Officer (SRO) and the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation. In LCR 14121 which was issued in 1993 the Court found that there was some merit in the claim but considered that the worker did not meet the criteria for promotion to the grade. The Court recommended that the worker be paid an allowance of £2,500 on top of his existing scale. The Union claims that although the Employer has applied the National Wage increases it has not applied the Special Pay awards to the allowance and therefore the claimant has fallen significantly behind the SRO grade for which the allowance was intended to compensate him. Specifically the Union is seeking the application of the following special allowance increases on a retrospective basis:
With Effect From: % increase:
Special Increase 1st April 1994 1%
Special Increase 1st July 1999 2%
Revised Payscale 1st April 2000 3.6%
Benchmarking 1st December, 2001 0.95
Benchmarking (Future missed payments) 2.85%
Management rejected the claim. 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 October, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 13th January, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Because the Employer has failed to pay the special increases to the claimant's salary it is €2,464 behind the maximum point of the SRO Grade.
2. In LCR14121 the Court recognised that the claimant was entitled to compensation because of the unwillingness or inability of the Employer to proceed with the promotion that had been recommended before the claimant's transfer. The allowance recommended at that time was approximately equivalent to the financial effect of the denial of promotion. In view of the continued financial impact on the claimant of being denied access to the Research Officer scales it is appropriate that the allowance be adjusted to reflect the current financial effect of the Employer's actions.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In line with custom and practice in Teagasc and the wider public and civil service normal pay round increases have been applied to this allowance but not the special pay increases. With the application of the normal pay round increases the allowance currently stands at €4,447, a significant improvement in the relative value of the allowance since the issue of LCR 14121.
2. Under Paragraph 6.6 of the Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body this allowance would not receive the Benchmarking increase as it would fall to be adjusted in accordance with normal custom and practice.
3. Concession of the claim could have serious repercussive effects throughout the public sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the custom and practice in respect of the allowance is that it attracts wage round increases only. This position appears to have been accepted throughout the period since it was first introduced. It is also noted that the application of benchmarking increases is determined by reference to the custom and practice in relation to the application of special increases. In the Court's view the nature of the allowance cannot be retrospectively changed at this stage.
For these reasons the Court cannot identify a basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th January, 2004______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.