FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD - AND - ICTU CRAFT GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Terms of reference for Parallel Benchmarking
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Local Government Management Services Board (LGMSB) and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU) Craft Group in relation to the terms of reference for a further "Parallel Benchmarking" excercise being undertaken to establish appropriate pay rates for craft workers employed in the local authority and health service sectors. Traditionally, these workers' pay was determined through negotiation after an analysis of pay rates in 20 comparator companies in the private sector. The parties are in dispute in relation to whether superannuation and tenure are to be taken into account, whether increases particular to a comparator employment should be discounted and whether or not the parallel benchmarking process should be integrated with the main Benchmarking process.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 7th April, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th July, 2006, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Superannuation and tenure did not form part of the terms of reference for the original Benchmarking process nor did they feature in any other analogue or Parallel Benchmarking process. The criteria for pay determination have been previously agreed and this should be included in the Consultants terms of reference.
2. Discounting increases that are considered to be in excess of national wage agreements and are considered to be particular to the employment in question is inappropriate. This did not form part of any previously agreed criteria and should not be included in the terms of reference on this occasion.
3. The craft group has its own agreed criteria for pay determination since 1979. There is no need or justification to integrate it with the main Benchmarking process.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Consultants' role in the Parallel Benchmarking excercise involves researching superannuation and tenure as well as other terms and conditions of employment. This has been agreed by other unions involved in the process and should be accepted by the craft group also. It is also necessary that increases particular to a specific position in a comparator company be discounted accordingly.
2. It is anomalous that the craft group has a different process of pay determination than other employees of the public service. The most appropriate method of pay determination for this group would be for the parallel process to be integrated with the main Benchmarking process.
3.The terms of reference proposed by Management are fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduction
It is noted that a significant level of agreement has been reached between the parties on the terms of reference for the second Parallel Benchmarking process. In that regard the Joint Working Group have accepted the proposals put forward by Management with the exception of two items. These relate to the factors which are to be taken into account in making comparisons for the purposes of the exercise and a proposal by Management that Parallel Benchmarking should be integrated into mainstream Benchmarking for the purpose of future exercises. The Unions have also sought agreement on a proposal which they tabled in relation to criteria for establishing basic rates. These three outstanding matters form the subject-matter of the dispute.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to each of these matters.
Factors to be taken into Account
The Court is satisfied that the Parallel Benchmarking process was intended to replicate, in respect of craft workers and associated grades, the main Benchmarking exercise undertaken through the Public Service Benchmarking Body. It follows that the general approach to drawing comparison for the purpose of the parallel process should be similar to that of the main exercise. This necessarily involves a degree of harmonisation of the criteria to be used in conducting both exercises. In that regard it is noted that questions relating to the relative value to be attached to superannuation and tenure are, by agreement, being taken into account in the main exercise.
Having regard to these considerations the Court recommends that Section 3 of the proposed terms of reference be redrafted as follows:
- "Consultants nominated by the Public Service Benchmarking Body will conduct an analysis of the existing terms and conditions of employment, including superannuation and tenure, and the roles, duties and responsibilities of craft workers in the Public Service and the comparator grades in the benchmark companies, including comprehensive analysis of the basis for any increase in addition to standard national round increases in the pay of craft workers in the benchmark companies, identifying those elements which arise from factors particular to the company in question. Any such particular factors identified will be discussed between the parties for the purpose of agreeing if, or to what extent, they should be discounted in making comparisons for the purpose of the exercise”.
The Court accepts that cogent arguments have been made as to why the parallel process should be integrated into the mainstream process. However, the concepts of Benchmarking and Parallel Benchmarking emerged from negotiations conducted by the social partners at national level. In the Court’s view any alteration in the arrangements for the future should, more appropriately, be negotiated and agreed at that level.
Criteria for Establishing Basic Rates.
It is noted that in the context of an overall settlement the Management does not oppose the inclusion of the Unions’ draft on this issue. Accordingly, the Court recommends that this draft be included in the proposed terms of reference.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th September 2006______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.