FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TEAGASC - AND - IMPACT / SIPTU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for an allowance to reflect the changes in the roles and responsibilities of College Principals.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions' claim is on behalf of four Teagasc College Principals for an increased allowance from €9,362 to €17,000 per annum. The increase is to reflect what the Unions claim is the major changes in the roles and responsibilities of the four workers concerned.
College Principals and Chief Agricultural Officers (CAOs) were granted post of responsibility allowances in September, 2000. In 2005, the CAO allowance, both "standard" and "higher", was increased to €15,000 as a result of Labour Court Recommendation LCR18233. Teagasc maintains that the Unions did not include the four College Principals in the case and, as a result, they remain on the old "standard" allowance of €9,362.
The Unions made a claim for the increased allowance on behalf of the four workers in May, 2006.Teagasc does not believe that there is merit in the claim. The case was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and two conciliation conferences took place. As the parties did not reach agreement 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 15th January, 2009.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The CAOs and College Principals are a common grade for pay purposes and staff have had the entitlement to move between these grades prior to the advertisement of posts.
2. The extent of restructuring, amalgamations and changes undertaken by College Principals in Teagasc Colleges is greater than the changes undertaken by the CAO grade.
TEAGASC'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The four College Principals have not been affected in the same manner as the CAOs under the Advisory Training Restructuring programme.
2. The Unions did not include the four workers in the original claim in 2005 which indicated an acceptance by them that no equivalent level of change was being experienced by this group compared with the CAOs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions made by the parties, the Court, in all the circumstances, recommends that the allowance be increased to €14,000 per annum with effect from 1st January, 2009.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
23rd January, 2009______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.