INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
Chairman: Mr Hayes
Employer Member: Ms Doyle
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan
2. The Union's claim is that two Grade 4 staff should have been upgraded - to Grade 5 - following restructuring of the Advisory Staff in 2005/2006. Claimant A took up duties as Administrative Grade 4 in the Advisory Services Department in March, 2005, and claimant B was appointed to the same grade in April, 2003. In June, 2005, the Labour Court issued LCR18233 which dealt with the Advisory Service in Teagasc and recommended that all those involved in the claim be awarded €15,000 (increased from €9,000) due to the level of change involved in the work. The Union's case is that due to a number of additional duties take on by the two claimants in the Advisory Service they should have be upgraded to Administrative Grade 5 and also paid the €15,000. The claim was made in November, 2007, but following talks at local level the claim was rejected by management which saw no merit in it.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th April, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd November, 2011, in Kilkenny.
3. 1. It is unfair that the grade of Manager above the two claimants and the grade of Staff Officer below them have all received allowances under restructuring. In addition, administrative staff at Grade 2 and Grade 3 level who report to the Grades 4s also receive an allowance.
2. At no stage from November, 2007, until May, 2009, did management state that here was no merit to the claim.
3. The changes to role of the two Grade 4s commenced in 2005 under the restructuring of the Advisory Services and the claim relates to these changes.
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and, as such, is debarred under Section 1.27 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 - 2014. Whilst minor claims can be made under the Agreement, the current one represents an increase of 38.5% to be applied to the claimants' salaries which in no way could be viewed as a minor claim.
2. There is no justification for the claim. The roles and responsibilities of the claimants are reflected in their job descriptions and are in line with what is expected of Administrative Grade 4.
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
As the issue before the Court amounts to a claim for an increase in pay it cannot, in light of the provisions of Section 1.27 of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014, be considered by the Court during the currency of that Agreement.
The Court so recommeds.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th November, 2011______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.