FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FORFAS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay relativity for Grade 4A for purposes of Benchmarking.
BACKGROUND:
2.
The Union is in dispute with Forfas concerning a pay relativity for the purposes of Benchmarking in the case of its Grade 4A members employed by Enterprise Ireland Limited.
In 1996 the IDA introduced a Grade 4A to bridge the gap between Grade 4 and higher Grade 3. Under the agreement introducing the Grade 4A scale, the minimum point was to be equivalent to the maximum point of Grade 4 and the maximum was to be equivalent to a point 50% between this point and the maximum point of the Grade 3 scale.
Under a harmonisation agreement of 1999 between Forfas, IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, a range of different scales comprising "solution scales" and "future scales" were introduced which took account of different pay arrangements in the various agencies. The ex IDA Grade 4 and 4A personnel were placed on a new level D scale and Ex IDA Grade 3 staff were placed on a new Level E scale. The Union wrote to Forfas in March, 1999, referring to an agreement with joint facilitators that the pay linkage for all current Grade 4A post holders as agreed in 1996 would be maintained.
The Union maintains that they are not trying in any way to renegotiate or undermine the Benchmarking process but as far as it was concerned there was an anomaly to be addressed. The 1999 letter which had never been refuted by management clearly provided for the maintenance of the linkage established in 1996.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th May, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Employer has breached the terms of the agreement reached between the Union and the Agencies, in the company of the joint facilitators, concerning the future pay linkages of the red-circled Grade 4A members.
2.There is correspondence from a Union official to the Personnel Manager of Forfas which clearly refers to the linkage in the future as part of the harmonisation agreement.
3.There is nothing in the Benchmarking report which prevents employers from honouring existing agreements with staff and unions in relation to internal relativities.
4. The agreement relates to a small defined number of red-circled people and there is no potential for any knock-on effect should the employer honour in full the terms of the agreement.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.It is the Agencies' position that a pay relativity, which applied to a legacy grade in an extinct grading structure, should not follow through to the new grading structure.
2. The harmonisation proposal put to the Union in 1999 made no reference to any special arrangement for members of staff on former Grade 4A.
3. On receipt of the letter from the Union official, referred to above, the Personnel Officer advised the Union official that what was being proposed did not form part of the formal proposal put by the Agencies to the Union.
4. This is a cost-increasing claim and is prohibited under the terms of paragraph 19.6 of 'Sustaining Progress'.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to ex-IDA Grade 4A staff who are seeking pay relativity with HEO/AP grades for Benchmarking purposes, i.e. 10% to 10.2% as applied to HEO, and 13.8% as applied to AP under Benchmarking, in accordance with a formula outlined when Grade 4A was established in 1996.
The Court is satisfied that an agreement was reached in 1996 on the establishment of Grade 4A, which specified a salary composed of a minimum point equivalent to the maximum point of Grade 4, inclusive of LSI’s and a maximum point equivalent to a point 50% between this point and the maximum of the Grade 3 scale.
The Court is also satisfied that in 1999 a harmonised deal was agreed which included Grade 4A into a newly classified grade know as Level D and introduced a new unified higher scale for all those grades subsumed into it. This became the new scale applicable for all the grades and from then on became known as Level D.
The issue, which the Court must address, in this case, is whether a pay relativity, which was established in 1996, still remains today or whether the harmonisation deal of 1999 eliminated all such relativities by the creation of a new single scale for the harmonised grouping of personnel from the different agencies.
In coming to a conclusion on this case, the Court must take cognisance of a letter contained in the Union’s submission dated 24th March 1999, addressed to Forfas from the Branch Secretary, which stated that “the agreed pay linkage for all current grade 4A post-holders as agreed in 1996 will be maintained”.
Forfas did not dispute the existence of this letter but argued that it was not accepted by Forfas as forming part of the 1999 agreement.
No rebuttal of this letter was ever forwarded by Forfas to the Union.
Having examined the 1999 harmonisation agreement, the Court notes that while specific reference is made to new arrangements for other grades, no mention is made of the retention of a pay relativity established in 1996 for the Grade 4A personnel. Consequently, the Court cannot accept that the letter carries the significance the Union is ascribing to it.
The Court is of the view that when the harmonisation deal was agreed in 1999, any connection with the methodology used in 1996 to establish the Grade 4A was no longer of relevance, as a new improved scale was introduced for this grade. Consequently, any relativity that may have existed prior to the harmonisation deal no longer exists.
The Benchmarking report examined the links and relationships between grades within the public service (and the public sector) and any linkages with grades must be with the appropriate substantative grades. Additionally, the report makes it clear that the awards recommended sever all previous pay links and establish new absolute levels of pay for each of the grades.
The Benchmarking award linked with Level D was the HEO grade, which was increased by 10% to 10.2%. The Court is of the view that this is the appropriate linkage in this case and consequently does not recommend in favour of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th September, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.