FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH WATER - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. A hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No 20757.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case arose from a previous Labour Court Recommendation No 20757. Following the Recommendation the Union and Irish Water could not agree the criteria to determine the pay of Resident Engineers. The Union has referred the matter back to the Court for a final Recommendation.
- The Union is seeking payment of the full Resident Engineer salary range which has been limited by Irish Water to a fixed annual salary of €60,000. Irish Water said that Circular Letter EL 10/96 dated 22nd July, 1996, governs the terms and conditions of staff employed as Site Supervisors on capital projects.
- As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th October 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th January 2015.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has provided evidence to Irish Water to show that in each of the eight Local Authorities identified the pay point within the particular salary range is determined by the level of post-graduate engineering experience of the individual Engineer.
2. Furthermore, in over half of those Local Authorities, the Union has established that pay also increases within the range in line with additional experience during the employment of the Engineers on site.
3. The Union disputes the argument that the pay of individual Resident Engineers within the various pay ranges is determined or even influenced by, the scale and complexity of individual projects.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Irish Water consulted with the Local Authority sector and with the Local Government Management Agency (LGMA) as the representative body for the sector on all industrial relations matters.
2. It was brought to the attention of Irish Water that there is, in fact, a Circular Letter which governs the terms and conditions of staff employed as Site Supervision staff on capital projects.
3. The Circular Letter expressly refers to the post in relation to the experience required and only to the holder of each post in relation to the likely pattern of additional hours required.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute (which was previously the subject of Recommendation LCR20757) concerns the mode of determining the pay of ‘Field Engineers’ who are engaged in the supervision of work associated with the installation of water meters on behalf of Irish Water. They are Resident Engineers who are seconded from various Local Authorities. Resident Engineers are Graduate Engineers who supervise capital projects on site. Resident Engineers in Local Authorities are remunerated within a pay range between €59,680 p.a. to €65,000 p.a. In addition they receive a site allowance.
On secondment to Irish Water, those associated with this dispute were placed on a salary of €60,000 p.a. together with the appropriate site allowance. The dispute under investigation concerns the appropriate mode of determining the point within the pay range at which a Resident Engineer should be placed.
The Employer determined the salary payable by reference to the level of experience and skill required to undertake the project on which the Resident Engineers are engaged. This, according to the Employer, is the agreed and accepted mode of pay determination within Local Authorities. The Union contends that the agreed and generally applicable practice in Local Authorities is that the point within the pay range is determined by reference to the skill and experience of each individual irrespective of the nature of the project on which he or she is employed.
In Recommendation LCR20757 the Court recommended that the parties should accept that the criterion against which the appropriate point within the salary range is determined in this case should be the same as that generally applied where engineers are assigned to work as Resident Engineers in analogous circumstances. The Court went on to recommend that the factual position in that regard within the Local Authority sector be established by the parties.
The Union obtained information in respect of the practice in eight Local Authorities. The Union claims that this information supports its contention concerning the agreed and accepted practice in Local Authorities generally. The Employer furnished the Court with a copy of a Circular Letter EL 10/96 issued by the Department of the Environment dated 22ndJuly 1996. This letter deals with, amongst other things, how the salary for posts such as those in issue in this case should be determined. According to the Employer, the mode of pay determination which it used conforms fully with the instruction contained in this Circular Letter. The Employer also pointed out that the content of Circular Letters of this nature are agreed with the relevant Trade Unions and are akin to a collective agreement. The Union disputes the Employer’s interpretation of the Circular Letter but, in any event, it contends that it is universally applied in a manner consistent with its claim.
The Union’s claim is grounded on the proposition that the universal practice in Local Authorities is to take account of the skill and experience of each individual Resident Engineer, assigned to work on site and in receipt of a site allowance, in determining the point within the salary range at which he or she is placed. The Employer’s position remains that the agreed and correct approach is to determine pay by reference to the skill and experience required to perform the actual work on which the Resident Engineer is to be employed rather than the skill and experience of the individual.
In issuing Recommendation LCR20757 the Court intended that those associated with the Union’s claim would be in no worse a position in relation to pay while on secondment to Irish Water than if they were performing analogous work in a Local Authority. The Court expected the parties to definitively determine whether the practice in all Local Authorities was to determine pay on the basis contended for by the Union or that used by Irish Water. It was hoped that the dispute would then be resolved, on the basis of the information obtained, by applying the same arrangements to those associated with the claim as are applied by all Local Authorities.
Regrettably, the information obtained by the parties does not go far enough to determine definitively, one way or the other, what the practice is within all 31 Local Authorities in the State. The Court remains of the opinion that this dispute can only be resolved when that information is obtained.
The Court recommends that the parties should now agree a form of question to be addressed to each Local Authority in the State, setting out their respective understandings of how the pay of Resident Engineers, in analogues circumstances to those in Irish Water, is determined and asking which version is used in that Local Authority. On the basis of the responses obtained the parties should make a final effort to resolve the dispute. If agreement cannot be reached the parties may refer the matter back to the Court.
If a reference back becomes necessary all of the information obtained should be furnished to the Court with such observations as the parties consider appropriate. The Court will then decide whether or not a further hearing is required before making a final Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
19th January, 2015.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.