FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ENTERPRISE IRELAND - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rehearing LRC 17867
BACKGROUND:
2. Enterprise Ireland, an Agency of Forfas was created as a result of a merger of An Bord Trachtala (ABT), Forbairt and a small number of employees from FAS. The different entities were brought together and arising from that process different grades, salaries and conditions emerged which were addressed in the context of integration and harmonisation. The Senior Scientific Officer (SSO) Grade in the Agencies is linked to Engineer Grade 1 in the Civil Service. They were awarded 7.8 % under Benchmarking. General service grades represented by SIPTU were harmonised in an agreement made in 1999 which brought about a new grading structure for those grades. One of the new grades was Level E which has a relativity with the Assistant Principal Officer Grade in the Civil Service. They were awarded 13.8% under Benchmarking. This grade is made up of former IDA Grade 3 and ABT Grade 6 staff. In order to achieve this single grade a Level E 'Solution' Grade was red-circled for staff on those grades in 1999. The personal to holder maximum salary which did apply to those staff was equivalent to the SSO Grade.The former ABT Grade7 forms part of the Level E Grade. Employees on former ABT Grade 7 held their salary on a personal to holder basis. The ABT Grade 7 salary was higher than the new Level E Solution Grade. AMICUS on behalf of the SSO Grade pursued a claim for harmonisation with the former ABT 7 Grade (LCR'S 16440 and LCR16585 refer) but the Court did not recommend in favour of the claim. The Union claims that as the pay parity had been achieved between the former Level E Solution Grade and SSO Grade and that the jobs and responsibilities are the same, so too should the amounts awarded under Benchmarking. 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 April, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd June, 2004. The Court's Recommendation issued on the 21st June, 2004. The Court in it's recommendation stated that an anomaly has arisen that effects only those SSO's who were in service at the time the Level E Solution scale was created in 1999. The Court recommended that both parties should negotiate with a view to the correction of this anomaly and put in place similar solution to those that were found in 1999.
- The Case currently before the Court concerns a dispute in relation to Labour Court Recommendation LCR17867. The Union's claim concerns two matters in relation to the Court's Recommendation. Firstly, the approach adopted by the agencies in relation to the formula for application, and secondly, the coverage of the Recommendation in relation to the SSO Grade staff. The agencies proposed to bring the SSO scale in line with the level E Solution Scale through the application of two additional solution increments to the SSO Grade. These solution increments, known as long service increments (LSI), LSI 7 and LSI 8, would be achieved after 7 and 8 years respectively on the maximum point of the SSO scale. As per LCR 17867, this solution would apply to staff that were on the grade in May 1999. The Union rejected Management's proposal claiming that the Level E Solution Grade did have two additional points applied at 7th and 8th year, after LSI 3 and LSI 6, however, this was based on shorter service related incremental "scale" (5 points). In effect the Level E Solution 7th point equated to the SSO LSI 3 and the Level E Solution 8th point equated to the SSO LSI 6 in value terms but on more advantageous length of service terms. The effect of this type of proposal is diminishing the Recommendation on two counts:
- (a) It will take an SSO longer service to achieve the proposed 7th and 8th year points on their scale.
(b) A Level E Solution person has the advantage and the benefit of the Pay anomaly through the "scale" as well as at the end points.
- (a) It will take an SSO longer service to achieve the proposed 7th and 8th year points on their scale.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and as agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on the 12th November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th February, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The SSO was and is the 'marker grade' and all members in the SSO grade should be covered by the Courts recommendation, from the date of the recommendation. In its own draft proposal for application, whilst stating March 1999 as the effective date, the Agency states that the divergence between Level E Solution and the SSO Grade occured in December 2001, long after March 1999, this adds further credence to the 'marker grade' nature of the SSO Grade.
2. There is further argument that the work and responsibilities of the Level E Solution Grade is similar to that of the SSO's and this was significant in developing the 'harmonised' solution as recognised by the Agency and whilst the creation of the new Level E Grade was negotiated and agreed separately at that time in the particular circumstances of that agreement, there was not a 'new SSO' grade created as a separate grade, nor were the Union informed by Management of any desire to do so either then or since.
3. Staff that have entered the SSO Grade since March 1999 have entered the grade without distinction being drawn between existing and entering staff. The Union argue that what it is now presented with is a 'retrograding' in effect for SSO's (post March 1999) within the 'harmonised grade' and in effect a unilateral alteration to the pay structure and relationship if it were to proceed in this way without being inclusive.
AGENCIES' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The proposal put forward acknowledges the anomaly described by the Labour Court and it upholds the need to preserve the integrity of the Benchmarking process. The Labour Court asked that a similar solution to that in 1999 be put in place and this proposal offered to the Unions is the same. This removes the anomaly complained of and described by the Labour Court.
2. The only alignment that was made between the Level E Solution scale and the SSO scale in 1999 was at themaximum achievable salaryand the seeking by the Union now to align many/all aspects of the scales is outside the remit of their claim and there would be significant implications.
3. Only 50% of Level E's are eligible for the 'Solution Scale', so therefore, any change to the SSO scale which goes beyond that of the Level E Solution scale would have a significant knock-on to the Level E grade as well as the wider set of solution scales established under the harmonisation agreement in 1999.
RECOMMENDATION:
In Recommendation LCR 17867 the Court rejected the Union's claim in so far as it amounted to an attempt to alter the application of the report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body to the claimant grade. The Court did, however, identify an anomaly affecting the grade arising from the introduction of the Level E Solution Grade in 1999. The Court made specific recommendations aimed at correcting the anomaly identified. The Court also made a specific recommendation as to the scope of the anomaly, namely that it affected only those in the SSO grade at the time the Level E Solution grade was established.
Having considered the proposals put forward by management, the Court is satisfied that they adequately reflect what the Court envisaged in making its original recommendation. In that regard the Court can see no reason as to why it should revise that recommendation, which was accepted by both sides.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the employers offer be accepted in settlement of the dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th February 2005______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.