FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FAS - AND - GROUP OF GRADE 4 EMPLOYEES DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non-application of LCR 16690 to other Directors.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1999 10 Regional Directors in FAS submitted a claim for a pay increase in line with that awarded earlier to a number of Directors in IDA (Ireland) Enterprise Ireland. Under the terms of this deal Directors were given access to two "solution increments" as part of a harmonisation settlement following the merger of ABT with Forbairt / Forfas. It was agreed that Directors serving at the date of the merger would progress over time to the two "solution increments". The number qualifying for these increments was limited to a maximum quota, equivalent to one third of the group at any one time, provided that they had completed ten years service on the maximum of the grade. FAS rejected the Regional Directors' claim and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. In December, 2000 the Court issued Labour Court Recommendation 16690 and subsequent final recommendation on the 14th August, 2001 which recommended as follows:
...........the pay arrangements now in place for current holders of comparable posts in IDA (Ireland) Enterprise Ireland be extended, on the same conditions, to the current holders of the post of Regional Director -FAS".
FAS subsequently implemented this recommendation, which resulted in two extra "solution" increments, the first from September, 1998 and the second from January, 2000 being paid to four of the ten Regional Directors at that time (i.e. one third of ten rounded up to four). The current claim relates to nine current/former Head Office based Directors who seek to have LCR 16690 and subsequent final recommendation extended to them. 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 on the 15th April, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd June, 2004.
EMPLOYEES' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants are/were employed as Directors Grade 4, the same grade as the Directors who benefited under LCR16690 and subsequent final recommendation. There should not be different pay treatment between different members of staff serving in Grade 4 in FAS. The pay arrangement recommended should have been applied to the entire group of employees serving at Grade 4 at the relevant time in 2000.
2. The claimants seek the application of a pre-existing Labour Court Recommendation and final recommendation. The claim is not a cost increasing one under the Sustaining Progress (SP) Agreement.
3. The pay arrangement involved has a strictly limited knock-on application even within Grade 4. It only applies to those who were already serving in the grade in 2000 and not to subsequent appointees to the grade. It is likely that only five of the nine staff serving in Head Office at the relevant time will benefit materially from the application of the arrangement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the S.P Agreement (Section 19.6).
2. LCR 16690 and subsequent final recommendation were the outcome of a specific hearing relating to Regional Directors only. The position of other Directors in FAS was not addressed by the Court.
3. Any extension of the "solution increment" deal at Director level in FAS will set a precedent for further knock-on claims from other staff categories.
4. The potential extension of the "solution increment" deal to other staff in FAS (as has already happened in IDA(Ireland) Enterprise Ireland) would result in a substantially increased salary cost to FAS. Given that some staff in FAS are seconded from the Civil Service, the claim has potential serious implications for the broader Public Service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court relates to the non-application of LCR No. 16690 to 9 Head Office Directors. The Court is satisfied that LCR No. 16690 applied to 10 Regional Directors and cannot be considered as having any broader application.
The claim before the Court is a cost increasing claim and is consequently precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress. The Court has also taken account of the report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body, which severed all pay links and established new absolute levels of pay of benchmarked grades.
Having given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions put forward by both sides, the Court does not recommend in favour of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th July, 2004______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.