LCR23335

CD/26/47

RECOMMENDATION NO.  LCR23335

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms Connolly
Employer Member:	Ms Bisiwe
Worker Member:	Ms Treacy

SUBJECT:

Joint Referral Under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

BACKGROUND:

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 referred to the Labour Court on 18.02.2026 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on 16 September 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Lough Agency manages and conserves the shared aquatic resources of Carlingford Lough and Lough Foyle. The company is an agency of the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission. It was established as one of six cross border bodies under the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement 1998. The Agency is funded by the Republic of Ireland (ROI) and United Kingdom governments on a 50:50 basis. The Board of the company reports to the North South Ministerial Council and Government Sponsor Departments in both jurisdictions.

In 2000, the North South Ministerial Council approved pay arrangements that allowed employees in cross border bodies to be remunerated by reference to equivalent civil or public service grades and subject to the tax regime in the jurisdiction in which they were based. In 2005, a North South Pension Scheme was introduced for cross border bodies.

Until 2015, employees of the Lough Agency, irrespective of jurisdiction, remained linked directly to Northern Ireland Civil Service pay scales denominated in sterling. For employees domiciled in Ireland and working in Ireland, salaries were converted to euro at the prevailing exchange rate, after which the relevant income tax and PRSI deductions were applied. Consequently, employees could not become members of the North South Pension Scheme.

In 2015, employees based in the Republic of Ireland were allowed to transfer across to the ROI Civil Service in 2015. The Union takes issue with the assimilation process used. Despite ongoing and protracted efforts at engagements, the matter remains unresolved.

Union Arguments

From inception all ROI based staff were incorrectly aligned to the Northern Irish Civil Service rates. The failure to apply the appropriate grade has caused significant hardship, loss of earnings and missed pension contributions. The Agency diverted from the practice used in other cross-border bodies, whereby the employer and the sponsor department applied a currency exchange rate fluctuation scheme to help alleviate the impact of varying exchange rates on employees.

From 2011 to 2014, the Agency took steps to join the North South Pension Scheme. A review commissioned by the Agency, concluded in 2014, confirmed issues raised regarding grading, taxation and proper jurisdictional alignment, yet no corrective action was not taken.

In 2015, members were allowed transfer to the ROI Civil Service grades. At that time, the parent department formed a view that members’ duties had been duly considered for the purposes of grade alignment. No comparator exercise was carried out and there was no engagement with members carrying out the task, a normal practice that would be undertaken in any evaluation process. The actions of the employer and of the Government Departments have placed members at financial disadvantage both in terms of grading, pension entitlements and access to social welfare entitlements. Union members were subject to improper assimilation methodology inconsistent with binding governance decisions and public sector practice. Despite the best efforts to resolve this issue, the employer has failed to clearly demonstrate that the mechanisms used in the assimilation process were best practice.

The Union requests that the Court recommend that the parties engage with all stakeholders to address the anomalies and apply appropriate retrospection to both our member salaries and pension contributions.

Company position.

The company operates in a unique North South environment, and employees work across two jurisdictions with differing pay structures, terms and conditions of employment, taxation systems and economic conditions. Previous management had legitimate reasons for determining that ROI based employees should not be assimilated to the ROI Civil Service grades. The company accepts that the methodology applied in the past was flawed. The Company acknowledges that the decision prior to 2015 not to apply pay arrangements in the same manner as other North South bodies did not fully reflect the guidance provided by the North South Ministerial Council.

In 2015, employees were allowed to assimilate to the Irish Civil Service grades. As directed by DPER and the DECC, the company was required to identify the equivalent Northern Ireland Civil Service grade, convert the salary to euro, and then match the role to the nearest Irish Civil Service grade based on title, responsibilities and remuneration.

The company is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its staffing complement with a view to increasing its approved headcount by creating additional roles between North and South. The Company has already undertaken several job evaluation exercises in respect of existing roles and intends to apply the same robust and independent methodology to all new positions.

Recommendation

The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court stems from a legacy issue with a protracted and complex history. It is evident that issues regarding the appropriate remuneration arrangements for ROI based employees have been the subject of extensive engagement since the establishment of the Agency. 

While management referred to broader challenges around the filling of ROI based vacancies, the sole matter before the Court relates to the correct grade alignment of four inspectors and a claim for retrospection. Essentially, the dispute relates to the methodology used when calculating the alignment of Inspectors with Irish Civil Service grades.

The grades applied by the Company to each individual employee were determined in accordance with the sponsoring departments instructions. The company says that it had no autonomy to deviate from instruction given by its parent department in that matter. The Union submits that as a result of incorrect alignment, its members have been financially disadvantaged. It seeks that its members are appropriately aligned to the grade similar to their comparator grade with retrospection awarded to the date of commencement of their employment. The parties are now at an impasse. It is clear from the union’s perspective that the issue in dispute is ongoing and needs to be resolved.

The Court heard that the assimilation of Inspector grades to the ROI Civil Service was carried out without direct input from the company, union or post holders at any time. No information was provided to the Court in relation to that matter. The lack of clarity around what evaluation exercise, if any, was undertaken when assimilating the Inspector grades has exacerbated the legacy issues outlined by the Union. From the submissions made, it was not clear if there was a shared understanding by all stakeholders about the anomalies cited by the Union in relation to the assimilation process undertaken in 2015.

Considering the above, the Court recommends that the parties engage with all relevant stakeholders in a time bound process to ensure a shared understanding of that matter. That process should be conducted within three months of the date of this recommendation.

Arising from that process, the Court recommends that the parties engage to agree an appropriate pathway to resolve any anomalies arising in line with agreed and established dispute resolution mechanisms.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
BB	______________________
13/10/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Bernard Byrne, Court Secretary.