FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PERSONAL INJURIES ASSESSMENT BOARD - AND - ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS (AHCPS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Implementation of PCW 1% Restructuring Deal.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) was established on the 13th April 2004 to enable the assessment of compensation for personal injuries without the need for legal proceedings. It did not replace any existing body or take over the work of a Government Department. Staffing was by direct recruitment to the Board. A small number of departmental staff were facilitated in recruitment to the Board by short-term secondments from the Department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation.
The matter before the Court is a claim by the Union for the implementation of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) 1% pay increase. The PCW dates back to 1994 and was sanctioned for implementation with effect from 1st July 1999 subject to conditions set out in Circular E109/39/99.
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 14th December 201. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st May 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintains that the claim cannot be considered as other than a minor claim.
2. The Union maintains that the PCW Agreement has been implemented in a number of other Agencies set up before and after the establishment of the PCW .
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management maintains that the claim is cost-increasing and therefore prohibited by the Public Service Agreement.
2. The Programme for Competitiveness and Work Restructuring Agreements predate the establishment of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act in 2003.
3. Management maintains that concession of the claim would have serious repercussive effects.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute. It is noted that the Union's claim is for the implementation within the Board of the terms of the PCW Restructuring Agreement of 1999. It is accepted that if the claim were to be conceded it would result in an increase in the payroll costs of the grades concerned by 1%. The Union contends that the claim is a minor claim within the meaning of the Public Services Agreement 2010-2014. The Board denies that it is a minor claim and contends that its concession would have knock-on consequences.
Having regard to all the circumstances currently prevailing the claim cannot be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th June 2011______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.