LCR22667

PARTIES:

1.Distribution of accumulated arrears to AP equivalents in the FSAI under PCW.

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was jointly referred to the Labour Court on the 19 July 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 31 August 2022. The following is the recommendation of the Court:



RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court concerns a 1994 National Agreement which led to a circular affecting members of AHCPS and (then) IMPACT in 1999. That circular allowed the parties to the agreement to create and utilise a fund equivalent to 1% of payroll to pay allowances to individual job holders rather than an ‘across the board’pay increase to all holders of the grade. That circular made provision for “joint monitoring of ongoing utilisation of the 1%”.

The parties before the Court reached a local agreement in 2007 on foot of this circular which provided for the allocation of 1% of payroll to facilitate the payment of an allowance to three holders of the grade of AP. That agreement led to the payment of an allowance to three AP’s with effect from 2008.

One of the beneficiaries of the allowance left the grade in December 2013, a second in January 2017 and a third in May of 2017. Consequently, after May 2017 no individual was in receipt of an allowance created by the allocation of 1% of payroll in accordance with the locally concluded 2007 agreement. The allowance was extended to three AP’s with effect from July 2018.

The Trade Union seeks full application of a benefit equivalent to 1% of payroll to its members covering the entire period since 2013 whenever less than three beneficiaries of the 2007 agreement were in payment. The employer contends that no possibility exists for retrospective payment to members of the Trade Union of the benefits accruing from the 2007 agreement.

It is clear to the Court that no effective joint monitoring of the utilisation of the 1% fund took place in the employment between 2013 and 2017. It is acknowledged by the employer that the Trade Union raised a claim in respect of the matter in late 2017. The Trade Union contends that correspondence took place after 2013 but put no material to support such a contention before the Court.

It is also clear to the Court that a range of public sector organisations, including Government Departments, have, over the years, made arrangements to ensure the consistent implementation of the 1999 circular including through the operation of arrangements to ensure utilisation of the 1% where a gap may have arisen between the departure of an allowance holder and the allocation of the allowance to a new beneficiary.

In all of the circumstances, the Court believes that both parties should acknowledge their shared responsibility for a failure to ensure consistent application of the benefits of the 1999 circular through their failure to ensure ‘joint monitoring of the utilisation of the 1%’ as required by the terms of the 1999 circular.

Noting that the making of arrangements to deal with gaps in implementation of the 1999 circular is not a novel concept in the context of the organisations and staff affected by the 1999 circular and taking into account the lack of effective monitoring of the matter in the employment, the Court recommends that the claim of the Trade Union, valued at €24,000 approx. should be conceded in the amount of 60% of the value of the claim. The amount conceded should be applied to the benefit of the members covered by the 1999 circular in a manner to be agreed locally by the parties.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
SL	______________________
27 October 2022	Chairman