LCR23336

CD/26/157

RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR23336

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

Chairman:	Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member:	Mr Marie
Worker Member:	Ms Hannick

SUBJECT:

Local Bargaining Claim Under Section 4.3.4 Of the Public Service Agreement 2024-2026

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 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court Hearing took place on 01 September 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

This dispute is in respect of a claim by the Trade Unions under the local bargaining clause of the Public Service Agreement 2024-2026. The Department rejected the Unions proposal and indicated that it did not form the basis for a claim under the local bargaining clause in the PSA. The issue was jointly referred from conciliation by the parties. Following a hearing on 1 September 2026 the Court became aware of correspondence between Mr Howlin Department of Public Expenditure and Mr Callinan General Secretary FORSA and Chair of the ICTU public Services Committee dated August 2026 and afforded the parties an opportunity to consider same and make any submission they wished in respect of same. The Court has taken that correspondence and those further submissions into account in this recommendation.

The Unions submitted that under the PSA Local Bargaining became the sole agreed mechanism through which sector-specific improvements in pay and conditions could be pursued. During June /July 2024 implementation of Section 4 (Local Bargaining) commenced within the sector under the auspices of the Higher Education Sectoral Oversight Group (HESOG). The first task was to identify bargaining units. During the latter part of 2024 and into 2025 three principal bargaining units in the sector emerged. The relevant one to this case being Academic, Teaching and Research.

The Unions agreed amongst themselves to prepare a comprehensive sectoral proposal addressing precarious academic and research employment in the sector for this bargaining unit.  They agreed a framework document for the purposes of local bargaining which identified in the main the following components.

• A Conversion Scheme for staff engaged in atypical teaching and academic activity;
• A researcher Career Framework, aligned with the Council of Europe Recommendation C/2023/1640;
• Provisions governing the appropriate use of fixed-term and specified- purpose contracts, including a prohibition on omnibus contracting;
• A framework for the remuneration of exam marking and assessment duties, including restoration of rates and standardisation across the sector
• A commitment to end the use of term-time only contracts and ensure contract duration reflect the full scope of duties; and
• A process to eliminate non- collectively bargained academic grades and ensure sectoral consistency in grading structures. These measures are designed to operate across all publicly funded Higher Education Institutions represented by the Irish University Association and to apply uniformly to eligible staff.

 The Employer without proper engagement rejected this proposal. The Unions were informed that DFHERIS had submitted the Unions proposals to DPER for consideration and that DPER had stated that the claim as submitted was not suitable for further progression under Local Bargaining and proposed that the Unions consider a claim around the application of the 1 % to the existing scales.

 The Union side were surprised that the claim was rejected without any engagement, and that DPER appeared to be exercising a veto which appeared to them to be contrary to the Local Bargaining clause of the PSA. While the Department indicated a willingness to consider certain elements of the framework proposal tabled by the Union they would not engage on the framework as a whole.

The second issue that arises from the Union’s perspective is in respect of how the claim is costed.  DFHERIS had initially estimated that the value of 1% of the Academic Teaching and Research bargaining unit was €8,074,218.90. However, in discussions at the WRC DFHERIS confirmed that DPER had revised downwards the value of 1% of payroll and stated that money available was now €5.7 million. DFHERIS stated that the reduced calculations had been based on the value of the core recurrent funding provided despite the fact clause 4.2.1 of the PSA expressly refers to the basic pay cost which was the basis originally used and provided the higher figure of in excess of €8 million.

 The Unions submitted they are now seeking clarification on these issues to enable them to proceed as provided for under the Local Bargaining clause of the PSA.

 In respect of the correspondence in August 2026 between Mr Howlin and Mr Callinan the Unions submitted that they had noted the additional option set out in the Howlin- Callinan correspondence but they wish to proceed with their claim as previously tabled and get into negotiations in respect of same. They are however prepared to consider same in the context of receiving specific commitments to negotiate how the remaining 2% would address the submitted claim under a successor agreement.

DFHERIS submitted that the operation of the local bargaining provisions has proven more complex than originally envisaged and had given rise to a number of implementation challenges across the Public Sector including differing interpretation of scope and application.  It was their submission that the local bargaining mechanism was intended to facilitate specific claims alongside management productivity and reform-based asks. The proposals put forward by the Unions are not local workplace issues nor do they represent discrete concerns affecting a defined grade group or category of staff. DFHERIS and management have been clear from the outset that the sectoral framework proposals cannot be advanced under local bargaining. This position has been confirmed with DPER. Management set out in the submission their reasons for why the proposals fall outside the scope of local bargaining. However, they accepted that they never sat down with the Unions and went thought the issues they had with the various proposals, not even at the WRC.

 DFHERIS submitted that the framework produced by the Unions breaches the principles and parameters of Local Bargaining as set out in the PSA while also being unaffordable under the funding limits associated with the process. It was their position that DPER under the process have a verification role on claims and costings. Management have indicated that they are prepared to address elements of the proposal, but the Unions have rejected this approach. The Employer side requested that the Court find that the proposed sectoral framework falls outside the scope of the Local Bargaining provisions of the PSA.

 In response to the Howlin-Callinan letters, DFHERIS stated that it believes that a 1% pay adjustment is a reasonable alternative proposal to staff given their ongoing concerns about the potential policy, financial and operational implications of the local bargaining claim as currently constituted and they are open to considering such a claim.

Discussion

It appears to the Court that there are two issues before it.

• Whether or not the Unions claims fall within the scope for discussion under the Local Bargaining clause of the PSA 2024 -2026
• The methodology for quantifying the value of the 1 %

There is no dispute between the parties as to what constitutes the bargaining unit in this case, or that this is a sectoral bargaining unit rather than a local one.

 The Court notes that clause 4.2.1 states “Employers and trade unions/associations may negotiate additional changes in rates of pay and /or conditions of employment up to a maximum of 3% of the basic pay cost, inclusive of allowances in the nature of pay.”

The issue before the Court is that the original calculation provided to the Unions was calculated on basic pay albeit the Unions were not given a breakdown of the figure and the second figure was based on the value of the core recurrent funding and again no breakdown of the calculation was provided.  Neither party were in a position to confirm which calculations had been used in other sectors .i.e. was it basic pay as stated in the agreement or the value of the core recurrent funding as was being proposed for this bargaining unit.  The Court recommends that the issue as to what the parties meant in clause 4.2.1 and how that should be interpreted, should be referred to the Joint Implementation Committee for clarification in line with 5.4.2 of the agreement.

The Court notes that in the course of the hearing the Employer stated that they had prior to engaging with the Unions sought DPER approval to engage with the Unions proposals and in circumstances where this approval was not forthcoming, they had not been in a position to engage with the Unions. The understood that DPER had a veto on the nature of proposals that could be discussed under local bargaining.

The Court notes that clause 4.1 sets out the terms of reference for Local Bargaining and makes no reference to any party having a veto over what can be tabled.  In terms of whether the Unions claim falls within scope the starting point should be for the parties to jointly engage and consider if the proposals as a whole or in part fall within the terms of reference set out in clause 4.1.

Clause 4.2 sets out the bargaining arrangements and again there is no reference to any party having a veto, however at clause 4.2.6 the agreement sets out what issues are excluded from the bargaining and the Unions proposal should be measured against these exclusions by the parties to see if any or all of the proposals are excluded by reason of this section. The final section is implementation which at clause 4.3.3 sets out the requirement to verify the costings and policy impacts of the proposals with DPER ahead of finalisation.

It seems to the Court that the Employer has not engaged with the Unions in the manner envisaged in the agreement in terms of the proposals they have put forward. The fact that the Employer believes the proposals are complex or present implementation challenges are not sufficient for the Employer to dismiss the proposal without proper engagement. The guidelines for consideration of those issues are contained in the Local Bargaining Section of the Agreement.  The issue of whether something is or is not permissible should be assessed against the terms of reference and Clause 4.2.6 in the first instance and then prior to agreement in line with clause 4.3.3. The Court recommends that the parties re-engage at the WRC in line with the procedure set out and above and also take into account the Callinan – Howling letters of August 2026 with a view to moving these issues on.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
BB	______________________
20/10/2026	Chairman

NOTE

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