FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LGMSB) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of Dual Duty Allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 2000 Meath County Council implemented a new decentralised management structure for the county. Arising from the changes in structures, Area Administrator Officers were awarded Dual Duty Allowance to reflect the additional responsibilities involved in the wider geographical area allocated to each of them. The dispute concerns a claim by five Area Engineers for a similar allowance as their contention is that they have also experienced increases in their responsibilities. The Council maintain that this is not the case and refused to extend the payment and award the allowance to the Area Engineers.
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 30th September, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th December, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union cannot understand why the Area Engineers are to be treated in a less favourable manner than the Administration Officers as both groups had a similar increase in their responsibilities at the time of the introduction of the new decentralised management structure.
2. The buy-out of the dual allowance payable to the Area Administrator does not address the grievance felt by the Area Engineers. The allowance should be paid retrospectively and then discussion held regarding a possible buy-out.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There are significant differences in the salary levels attached to both posts, the Area Engineers already are remunerated on a higher scale as their responsibilities always covered both geographical areas and towns.
2. The cost of conceding this claim in full would cost the Council €220,000 including buy-out, at a time when local authorities are experiencing severe financial difficulties.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is not satisfied that the Claimants in this case met the criterion for payment of the dual allowance.
In these circumstances the Court cannot see any reasonable basis upon which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th December, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.