FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non-Payment of Post Maximum Increment.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a retired Teagasc worker who held a personal maximum salary above the normal maximum of the Agricultural Development Officer on the introduction of a Staff Scheme in 1982. The issue concerns the application of a Post Maximum Increment (PMI), equivalent to 2.1% of basic pay, which was held by the claimant on a personal basis.The claimant qualified for the payment in 1982 when he was then in the employment of ACOT, as an Agricultural Development Officer. ACOT was taken over by Teagasc. The payment of the PMI continued to 1997 when, upon implementation of Clause 2 (iii) of the PCW Agreement the Employer discontinued the payment of the PMI to the claimant and a number of colleagues. The Employer also deducted arrears back to 1994. The Union claims that this was done without agreement and is seeking that the PMI be reinstated and re-applied to his pay and pension retrospectively to 1994. Management rejected the claim stating that the introduction of Long Service Increments (LSI's) under the PCW, amounting to 6.98% and applied retrospectively to 1994, were more beneficial to the worker and, in those circumstances, the PMI could not be retained. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. On the 28th April, 2004 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 24th June, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The PMI which was abolished in 1982 was retained to those who enjoyed it on a red circle basis. Therefore, the numbers and cost of the PMI was to decrease over time.This was enshrined in the Teagasc collective agreement known as the Staff Scheme in 1982.
2. From 1982 to 1997 all National Wage Agreements and other general increases were applied to the claimant's PMI, thus highlighting that it was very much part of his basic pay and was indeed pensionable.
3. The Union does not accept that the discontinuation of the PMI, to those who enjoyed it on a red circle basis, was part of the PCW Agreement of 1997. The claimant was not advised that he would lose his PMI on the introduction of LSI's.
4. The Union is seeking that monies owed (then valued at £300-€380.92) per year back to 1994 be paid in full to the claimant. If the Employer does not pay this money to the claimant and restore his notional basic pay there would be implications for the value of his pension.
5. As the claimant and three others are the only remaining workers who enjoyed the PMI there is little potential for knock-on claims.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of LSI's under the terms of Clause 2 (iii) the PCW Agreement, in effect increased the PMI from 2.1% to 6.98%. What the claimant held on a 'personal to holder' basis was significantly improved upon in that he was now 6.98% rather than 2.1% above the normal maximum.
2. The PMI conceded to the claimant in the context of the Staff Scheme in 1982 was agreed on a purely personal basis and reflected the scale structure in existence at that time. The 2.1% PMI increment held by the claimant was overtaken not removed by the 6.98% LSI.
3. The Employer does not accept the Union's claim that it should add, retrospectively for ten years, the 2.1% PMI to the 6.98% LSI. No provision exists for this within the PCW Agreement. It was not sought by the Union in discussions on the Clause 2 (iii) Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that with the introduction in 1997 of PCW Clause (2) (iii) Agreement for Advisory Grades, LSI's were introduced for the claimant's grade. The Court is satisfied that the introduction of LSI's introduced increments related to years of service for those employees on the maximum grade who were not already in receipt of a post maximum increment.
Having examined the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that it would be exceptional for any employee to be in receipt of two forms of service related increments, even if one had been in place for a number of years prior to the formal introduction of LSI's in 1997. The fact that the value for the claimant, of the LSI when introduced, exceeds the value of the one held on a personal to holder basis, implies that he should benefit from the enhanced one, but the Court cannot accept that he should retain both. Therefore, the Court does not recommend acceptance of the Union's claim.
However, the Court is of the view that when retrospection was paid in 1997, he could have been paid the same amount of retrospection as all others, therefore, the Court recommends that he should now be paid the sum of €2,000 in full and final settlement of this 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.