FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEGAL AID BOARD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Grading and pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions' claim before the Court is for a review of the pay and grading of Solicitors in the Legal Aid Board to restore their position relative to Solicitors in the Chief State Solicitor's Office. In the 1990s the salaries of the Solicitors in the Board had fallen behind those in the private sector. The salaries were directly related to grades in the Chief State Solicitor's Office. A review of the Board's Solicitors' salaries was conducted under Clause 3.2 of the PCW. This established a relationship between the Solicitors and the Civil Service Grade of Principal Officer. The Unions accepted the proposals with the caveat that they reserved the right to enter a claim if a similar category of worker received payments over and above those which the members in the Legal Aid Board had accepted. In 2000 a review of the Chief State Solicitor's Office took place and the result included the creation of new posts and additional rates of pay. In 2006 the Unions' members became aware of this and lodged a claim for a review.
The Board's position is that under the PCW review, the Solicitors received on average a 20% increase. They also have received all general round pay increases under successive National Agreements. Additional to this, the Solicitors received an 11.7% increase under the Benchmarking Process. This compares favourably with awards to other professional staff within the Civil Service pay grades.
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 29th May, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd October, 2008.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 All grades of Solicitors have a high level of responsibility and accountability. All Solicitors service a diversity of clients and take full responsibility for the effective running of each of their cases. In all grades, the Solicitors are decision-makers in their cases and this requires a high level of professional expertise.
2 The complexity and nature of the Board's Solicitors' workload has increased over the years. This includes an increase in new legislation, maintaining the profile of the Legal Aid Board, managing staff, promoting alternative dispute resolutions and acting as Freedom of Information Officers. No additional posts have been allocated to deal with this.
3 The Board has a relatively flat structure leading to very few promotional outlets for solicitors. They do not have flexitime, overtime or time-off-in-lieu.
BOARD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Board considers the current salary scales as competitive as there is a low turnover of Solicitors and recruitment has not caused any problems.
2 The changes in work practices are normal and ongoing change and are not in any way different from the change applying to grades across the Civil Service at similar levels. The outcome of the Benchmarking Process combined with the general round increases paid under successive national agreements more than compensate the Solicitor staff for any change that has occurred.
3 Change in the grading structure in the Chief State Solicitor's Office was linked to specific and major restructuring of that office and has no parallel in the Board.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court, made in 2006, on behalf of both Unions is for a review of the pay and grading structure of Solicitors in the Board.
The pay structure in the Board was established following an independent report in 1999, which was recommended by the Labour Court in response to claims under PCW Clause 3.2. The Union submitted that in the meantime they have fallen behind other legal personnel in the Public Service and in any event their acceptance of the pay review in 2000 included a “caveat” allowing them to submit further claims in the event of other groups receiving better deals.
Management at the Board submitted to the Court that the claim is cost-increasing and, therefore, debarred under the terms of Towards 2016 and is prohibited by Government Pay Policy.
Having examined the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that when both Unions accepted the proposed new pay and grading structure in 2000, that acceptance finalised the claim under PCW Clause 3.2 at the time.
Clause 19.6 of the Public Service Agreement associated with Sustaining Progress provides, in effect, that no cost-increasing claims by trade unions or employers will be made or processed during the currency of the Agreement other than those provided for by the Agreement itself or those arising from the Public Service Benchmarking Body. A similar provision is contained at Clause 27.7 of the Towards 2016 Pay Agreement.
Benchmarking has provided arrangements by which further or special pay adjustments over and above the national partnership agreements can be made to address disparity in pay levels by reference to appropriate internal and external comparators.
The Court finds that the current claim, submitted in 2006, arises from the restructuring which took place in the Chief State Solicitor’s Office, is cost-increasing and is debarred by both the terms of Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016 and by the terms of both Benchmarking exercises. Consequently, the Court rejects the Unions’ claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th October, 2008______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.