FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CENTRAL FISHERIES BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pensionable allowance for extra responsibility.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the payment of an allowance of £5,000 (€6348) from 1999 which is pensionable and subject to national pay increases.The dispute concerns a worker who commenced employment in 1961 and was appointed to Fishery Officer level in 1964. In 1974 he was in charge of Roscrea and Mullingar fish farms and was promoted to Inspector level in 1980 and remains in this grade to the present time. The worker made a number of attempts to have his work and success with fish farming recognised in the form of a pensionable payment. While Management was sympathetic to his claim no concrete action was taken to address the claim. In June, 2001 the Union wrote to the Central Fisheries Board seeking to have the claim addressed. In 2002 the Union submitted a detailed submission of the duties and responsibilities undertaken by the claimant. Management supported the submission and forwarded it to the Department of Communications Marine and Natural Resources for consideration. The Union was unhappy about the delay in addressing the claim and referred the issue 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 19th May, 2005 in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. Following the referral Management made an offer of a non-pensionable allowance of €4,000 per annum effective from January, 2004. This allowance would attract increases under national wage agreements and would be confined to the claimant. The offer was rejected by the Union. A Court hearing was held on the 21st September, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The amount of £5,000 p.a.(€6,348) was put forward not as an opening bargaining position but as the area of settlement of this claim following detailed discussions with Management at the time. It was also claimed from 1999 which, with increases under subsequent pay agreements, would have increased to around €8,000 by the end of this year. The Department's offer cuts the claim by almost one half and in doing so for the first time effectively rejected the claim. After three years of clarifications and consideration this is unacceptable.
2. Given the additional responsibilities and duties of the post and in particular the claimant's success in generating additional revenue from fish farming, (details to the Court), it is insulting to offer him such a small return.
3. As this is a unique position in the service concession of this claim will have no knock on effect elsewhere.
4. The inclusion of this allowance in the claimant's pay has always been a paramount consideration. This was clearly and repeatedly stated and acknowledged as such by Management. The Department's offer means that the claimant will not benefit from this allowance beyond June,2006 (his retirement date).
5. The only other continuous allowance paid throughout the field grades is the Unsocial Hours Allowance and this is pensionable. As well as being wrong it would be inconsistent with this agreement not to make the claimant's allowance pensionable.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management accepts that the claimant undertook additional duties and responsibilities, however, the PCW agreement includes a specific provision for management responsibilities and the SP agreement provides for flexibility and modernisation . The remuneration which the claimant receives is consistent with his grade and is reasonable when compared with other public service posts of similar responsibility.
2. The claimant receives an Unsocial Hours Allowance to compensate him for hours worked outside of normal working hours and he is also entitled to time off in lieu for additional hours worked.
3. In considering the offer of €4,000 Management took into account the difference between the top of the claimant's scale and the scale of the HEO grade- a generic grade at middle management level across the public service and in the CFB. The difference between the top of the scales amounted to approximately €4,000 at that time. Management believes the offer is reasonable in the circumstances.
4. In relation to the pensionability of the allowance the offer is made to settle the matter taking into account all of the circumstances of the case and the fact that it includes an element in recognition of additional hours worked as well as carrying out additional responsibilities/duties. Compensation for extra hours is not normally considered to be pensionable and in general such allowances across the public sector are not pensionable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is fully satisfied on the submission made to it that the circumstances of the claimant are exceptional and that this claim has considerable merit.
The Court recommends that an allowance in the amount claimed (€6,438) be conceded with retrospection to 1st January, 2001. The Court further recommends that in the circumstances of this case the allowance should be reckonable for pension purposes.
This recommendation is made having regard to the exceptional circumstances which are present in this case. It is not to be regarded as having any precedent value and should not be quoted or relied upon in support of any other claim either in this employment or elsewhere.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th September, 2005______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.