FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONEGAL COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for implementation of Craft Analogue / Parallel Benchmarking Awards.
BACKGROUND:
2. The parties are in dispute in relation to the arrangements for the implementation of the National Parallel Benchmarking awards in respect of craftsmen, general operatives and related grades employed by Donegal County Council. The position is complicated by the fact that the Council and the Unions negotiated a separate agreement known as the Donegal Agreement in advance of Benchmarking. The agreement provided for new grading structures for outdoor employees, agreed comprehensive role descriptions, reorganisation of services, supervisor grades assuming greater levels of responsibility, revised pay structures and increased productivity levels. Subsequent to this agreement being concluded, full implementation of the pay terms agreed were implemented. In December, 2003 the Council and the Unions commenced negotiations with a view to reaching a consensus as to the basis upon which the National Pay Awards resulting from Parallel Benchmarking exercise would be implemented in Donegal in the context of the pay and grading structure currently in place. A Joint Working Group was established to examine all aspects of the issue. Local negotiations were not successful and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Two conciliation conferences were held in 2004 . Following the second conciliation conference in December, 2004 the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a set of proposals, which were recommended for acceptance by the negotiating teams but were rejected following a ballot of the workforce. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd March, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 9th June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Parallel Benchmarking Agreement and Craft Analogue/Parallel Benchmarking Agreements are National Agreements entered into by the Unions and Local Authorities. They are negotiated nationally and accepted by secret ballot vote nationwide. The claimants expect that the pay terms of these agreements will be applied to them.
2. The basis for the Donegal Agreement was to facilitate the Council in implementing a programme of decentralisation and restructuring in the provision of services to the people of Donegal. It is a separate stand alone agreement relating to the Donegal Local Authority.
3. The pay rate differentials negotiated under the terms of the Donegal Agreement would be significantly eroded by the non-implementation of the full terms of the National Agreements. The concessions made by the claimants under the Donegal Agreement are significantly in excess of the modernisation and change agenda required under both National Agreements relating to this case and therefore justifies that these pay differentials remain in place.
4. The pay terms of the Craft Analogue/Parallel Benchmarking Agreement must be applied to all grades who have a pay relationship to the Craft Grade pay scales in order to retain that pay relationship which was established under the Donegal Agreement. Management in implementing the pay terms of the Craft Analogue Agreement 2000 applied these pay increases to Water Inspectors who had been regraded under the terms of the Donegal Agreement and whose pay structure was that of Assistant Craft Foreman Grade for pay purposes.
5. A precedent has been established in Sligo Local Authority where pay terms which equate to those in the Donegal Agreement have been applied for Craft Grades/ Sligo Local Authority and subsequently the full pay terms of the Craft Analogue/ Parallel Benchmarking Agreement have also been applied to these grades.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pay scales which apply in Donegal remain higher than those which apply nationally for comparator grades. This is despite the fact that the Parallel Benchmarking awards have not been applied to the 'Donegal Rates' The Sustaining Progress increases have been applied in all cases. The payment of Parallel Benchmarking nationally will result in these grades catching up with rates paid in Donegal and that demonstrable productivity is needed in relation to introducing elements of the National Modernisation Agenda in Donegal.
3. While the Council is extremely anxious to bring this matter to finality it is obliged to operate within and have regard to the nationally agreed frameworks and verification processes for the grades involved. The following national constraints must be taken into consideration in considering options for the resolution of this dispute. Approval to apply the increases was subject to verification by the Performance Verification Group established under the Parallel Benchmarking exercise and sanction of the Secretary General within the relevant Department. The Council supplied documentation to the Court which clearly established the view that the modernisation and change agenda which was pursued in Donegal was broadly in line to that which emerged from the National Negotiations on Parallel Benchmarking and that in the Donegal case it has already been paid for.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that significant progress was made at conciliation on the issues now before the Court. While the proposals which emerged (as set out in the IRO'S letter of 10th December, 2004) were subsequently rejected by the unions, it is the Court's view they represent a fair and reasonable approach to the issues in dispute. They are also consistent with the report of the Joint Management Union Working Group Report of 24th June, 2004 which formed the basis that the parties agreed to enter negotiations on the major rationalisation of craft and general operative grades.
Nevertheless, the Court has taken account of the submissions of the parties and has concluded that a further modification of the IRO's proposals could be justified so as to bring finality to the issues outstanding. Accordingly, the Court recommends as follows:
1. Travel time should continue to be paid within the roads service until 31st December, 2006 and thereafter it should be replaced with subsistence payments on the terms set out in Appendix 1 of the IRO 's proposal of 10th December, 2004.
2. General operatives whose pay was aligned with that of craft-workers under the local agreement should retain that alignment (on a personal to holder basis) until the next analogue review/parallel benchmarking exercise, at which time the position should be reviewed.
3. All other aspects of the IRO's proposals, with any other necessary adjustments to give effect to 1and 2 above, should now be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th June, 2005______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.