INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
AN BORD PLEANALA
- AND -
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
Chairman: Mr McGee
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr Nash
1. Hearing arising from LCR 18490.
2. The issue concerns a rehearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR 18490 issued on the 16th February, 2006. The Union originally made a claim for upgrading and increased numbers and a restructuring of An Bord Pleanála. Since the original claim was made, the Union is also seeking enhancements to other terms and conditions of service including superannuation, annual leave, fixed car allowances etc. The Labour Court Recommendation stated“It is the view of the Court, given all of the above, that discussions on implementation of the report did not constitute a "claim in breach of Sustaining Progress" and that the parties should now resume discussions on that basis, with a view to arriving at a solution.
The Court would expect these discussions to be complete within six months of the date of this recommendation. Any outstanding matters can, at that time, be referred back to the Court if the parties so wish.
As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on the 14th September, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th September, 2006 and the 10th November, 2006.
3.1 The Union still stands over its arguments on 8th February, 2006, put to the Court at the hearing. The Management's response on August 3rd, 2006 that the Union must await the outcome of the review of the Board by the Higher Remuneration Body Review is outrageous and inflammatory given that the full time and salaried Board regraded itself in April, 2002. The sequence of awaiting further potential benefits to this Board before the senior staff of a significantly sized cadre of professionals can be considered before a report due out in late 2007 is unacceptable. The Board and the Departments were aware of the High Level Review Groups when they sat down on 8th February, 2006. If it was a real issue they should have stated that then.
2. The counter proposals put forward by the Company on 8th February 2006, that the claim was in breach of Sustaining Progress has been rejected by the Court.
3. The Union argues strongly that Board members already received a regrading relating solely to the matters arising from the 1992 and 2000 Planning legalisation. The Union therefore seeks that the Court precludes the linking of the IPC review to the strategic infrastructure responsibilities.
3. The framework for future filling of Public Service post in 'Towards 2016' is well set out in that Agreement. There is no need for more onerous conditions to be set for the staff in the Board.
4. Given the long history of this case and that no ballot on IPC implementation could or will be carried without this concession by the larger Administration Section of the Union's branch, a decision to concede this claim is vital.
4.1 A further generous offer has been made by the Board to IMPACT on 3rd August, 2006. In the view of the Board, this offer, when associated with previous concessions and additional promotional outlets (Annex 5 of submission supplied to Court) should be sufficient to resolve all claims. This offer has however been rejected without comment by the Union.
2. The issues which have not been conceded, (details supplied to the Court) will either be revisited after the ruling of the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Sector or cannot be conceded by the Board because they are contrary to other developments on pay and conditions or would have wider ramifications for the Public Service.
3. The Board is anxious to resolve all outstanding matters in order for the Board to carry out its statutory functions and to gear up for the early implementation of the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act, 2006.
The Court, having fully considered the written and oral material put before it at the hearing, recommends that the parties should re-engage as a separate process on the question of duties arising from the Strategic Infrastructure Act, 2006. In regard to full and final settlement of matters arising from the IPC Report, the Court recommends as follows in regard to the grades affected:-
Planning Officer / Director of Planning:-
An additional allowance of €4000 p.a. (€2000 backdated to April 2002 and €2000 with effect from 3rd August, 2006. Salary to be reviewed following the outcome of the examination by the High Level Pay Review Group (HLPRG) of the Board Members' and the Deputy Chairman's salaries.
Deputy Planning Officer / Assistant Director of Planning:-
An additional allowance of €4000 p.a. €2000 backdated to April 2002 and €2000 with effect from 3rd August, 2006. Salary to be reviewed following the examination by the HLPRG of the salaries of Board Members and the Deputy Chairman.
Senior Planning Inspector:-
An allowance of €2500 p.a. (€1250 backdated to April 2002 and €1250 with effect from 3rd August, 2006.
An allowance of €2,500 p.a. (€1250 backdated to April 2002 and €1,250 with effect from 3rd August, 2006.
All of the above on the basis of the offer outlined in Paragraph 2(11) of the Management submission of 3rd August, 2006, with the exception, as outlined above, of duties under the Planning and Development (S.I.) Act 2006.
Local Government Professional Added Years Scheme:-
The Court, having considered the matter, does not see merit in the Union's claim and does not recommend that it be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.