FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & SKILLS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1. TLO allowance, 2. Remuneration categorisation arrangements for current permanent CEO's on establishment Of ETBs.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns changes to the remuneration and an allowance paid to VEC CEOs when the 33 VECs are replaced by 16 Educational Training Boards. This 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 August, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th November, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Employer has unilaterally imposed significant changes on the Workers.
2 Existing pay rates are explicitly protected by the terms of the Public Sector Agreement.
3 The Workers are unfairly expected to provide the majority of savings demanded by the Employer.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Employer has at all times acted honourably in these negotiations with the Workers.
2 The Employer is required to proceed with the implementation of a revised pay structures for redeployed CEO to ensure a seemless transition to the new ETB structure.
3. Compensation for the loss of the TLO allowance should be in line with the Public Sector Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that this dispute came before the Court pursuant to the Public Services Agreement 2010 – 2014 and that the parties have agreed to be bound by the Court’s recommendations.
The Court is conscious of the position taken by the Government as an employer in relation to the continuance of certain allowances. The Court is aware that Government Departments and other Public Sector Employers have been advised to engage with the relevant Unions with a view to reaching agreement on change to, or elimination of, certain allowances. As no overall agreement has been reached the dispute resolution procedures set out in the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 can be invoked by either party in the case of disagreement on the continued application of particular allowances. It is in that context that the present dispute is before the Court.
General Considerations
It seems to the Court that in addressing the question of whether allowances should be retained, changed or eliminated a number of considerations arise depending on the type of allowance involved. Where a pensionable allowance is paid across a grade and relates to the normal duties of the grade, it might reasonably be regarded as part of normal pay. In such cases the most appropriate mode of eliminating the allowance may be to incorporate it into core pay. Where an allowance relates to a particular duty or function that is performed in addition to the normal duties of the grade different considerations apply. Where a recipient is no longer required to perform the additional dutyor function to which the allowance relates, its elimination may be justified. In such cases the payment of compensation, if any, should be a matter for negotiation
Transport Liaison Officer’s Allowance
The Court notes that this is an allowance in the nature of pay and is reckonable in the same way as basic pay for pension purposes. It is further noted that the allowance relates to specific additional duties and that the requirement for those in receipt of the allowance to continue performing those duties has ceased. In these circumstances the Court accepts that its elimination is justified. In this case the Department have offered to pay the established compensation formula of 1.5 times the annual loss in the case of each individual affected. The Court recommends that this offer be accepted.
Pension Implications
There is an added complication in this case in that, as noted above, the allowance in issue is reckonable for pension purposes. Its elimination will, on that account, have added and continuing consequences for those concerned which the established compensation formula is incapable of taking into account.
The Court recommends that the parties should enter into central negotiations with a view to reaching a generally applicable agreement on measures by which loss arising from the elimination of pensionable allowances can be ameliorated.
Remuneration Categorisation Arrangements for Current Permanent CEO’s on Establishment of ETB’s
The Court recommends that the issues arising in this aspect of the case be resolved on the terms of the LRC proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th January, 2013______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.