FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for incremental credit & retrospection. Differential for Assistant CAO Grade.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Claimant who is employed on the Advisory Grade II scale and designated as an Alternative Enterprise Specialist. The Union is seeking that a 91% differential that exists between the former grades of Chief Agricultural Development Officer (CADO) and Senior Agricultural Development Officer (SADO) prior to the abolition these grades in 1994 should be restored in respect of the claimant's current grade. The Union is also seeking that the claimant should receive 91% of the €16,073.79 allowance paid to Advisory Grade 3 Staff assigned to the position of Area Manager. Management rejects the Union's claim.
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 5 December, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union contends that the Claimant has retained his duties of an Assistant CAO together with the statutory obligation to deputise for the Chief Agricultural Officer his absence throughout the various restructurings of the Organisation. He has personnel management functions and cheque-signing authorisation. He regularly addresses symposia, seminars and public events on a county, regional and national basis.
2. The former differential of 91% has now widened to just under 75% of the Area Managers salary. As a result of this slippage, the Claimant as Assistant Chief Agricultural Officer has a lower salary/allowance than those members of the Advisory Service in other areas whose duties are programme related and who do de facto work under the Claimant. This is inappropriate.
3. The Claimant's allowance should be at a level between the salary and allowance of the posts of responsibility and that of the Area Manager (formerly CAO).
4. The Claimant is the only one of the original red-circled group still in this position. The Union believes that the Claimant's career advancement ceased following the formation of Teagasc. His expertise, however, has continued to benefit the Organisation which has in turn treated him extremely unfairly by allowing his pay relativity to become so eroded.
5. The Union believes that it would be only fair and just to increase his allowance with retrospection to October 2000, in order to restore him to his former position and to index-link it to ensure such a situation does not arise again.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 It is Management's position that this matter was before the Labour Court in 1998 and that the Court has already dealt with the claim. It did not restore the 91% pay relationship but awarded an amount (€1,500) equal to the "personal to holder allowance", as per Labour Court Recommendation LCR15952. This was accepted by both IMPACT AND SIPTU.
2. The Claimant continues to benefit from the annual payment of what was originally a €1,500 allowance. This allowance is now €3,153. The Claimant has also benefitted from benchmarking increases. The Benchmarking Body's recommendations on the remunerations of the benchmakred grades have the effect of severing all previous pay links and establishing new absolute levels of pay for each grade.
3 In 2000, 'Post of Responsibility' allowances were negotiated by SIPTU and IMPACT for certain Grade II staff in recognition of the adoption of additional duties and responsibilities. No special case was made by SIPTU during this process. Management believes that SIPTU accepted that the claimant was not required to take on additional responsibilities over and above his other Grade II colleagues.
4. Management contends that there is no comparison between the role, duties and responsibilities of Grade II such as the claimant and that of Grade III, Area Manager. .
5. Management believes that this claim is unfounded as:
- The claimant's responsibilities vis a viz other Grade 11 staff have not materially changed since 1998
- The claimant has failed to justify any rationale for a pay relationship with Advisory Grade III posts and
- These issues have already been dealt with by the Labour Court.
6. Management is requesting that the Court accepts that LCR15952 takes account of the Claimant's circumstances arising from previous grade restructurings and to recommending accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having carefully considered the detailed submissions made in this case, recommends that, in the claimant's unique circumstances, his personal-to-holder allowance be increased to €12,000 per annum with effect from 1st July 2005 and that it be index-linked thereafter. This is a red-circled arrangement unique to the claimant, which establishes no links or precedents to any other or future situations.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th_June, 2007______________________
JB`Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.