FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Restoration of the 10%-20% pay relativity with Station Officers.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim by the Unions that the pay differential between District Officers and Station Officers should be 10% at a minimum of the scale and 20% at the top of the scale taking account of the rent allowance.
- 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 the 9 August 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17 November 2017.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has been significant erosion of the agreed pay relativity between District Officers (D.O) and Station Officers (S.O), resulting in a situation whereby the first three points of the D.O scale pay are less than the pay for a top of scale S.O taking the rent allowance into account.
2. In line with the agreed pay relativity established through Arbitration Reports 052 and 077, the pay scales of D.O’s should be revised accordingly to maintain the 10% - 20% pay differentials.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 2000, a series of negotiations took place between Dublin City Council and the Trade Unions under Clause 2 (III) A-Phase 2 of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
2. Arising from those negotiations revised pay scales were agreed for the grades of Fire Fighter up to D.O. Under the new scales agreed, the basic pay on the first point of the S.O scale was 10% lower than the first point on the D.O scale. Similarly, the max point on the S.O scale was 20% lower than the max point on the D.O scale.
3. Dublin City Council has continued to apply the differentials as agreed and continues to do so over the years as the application of new pay agreements arise and are applied.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Unions’ claim that the long-established pay differential applicable to District Officers in the Dublin Fire Service over and above Station Officer’s rate of pay has been eroded and they sought it restored. This relationship was established in 1980 when the National Joint Council and Arbitration Board for the Local Government and Health Services in Report No.52, the Chairman decided that the pay of District Officers“should be increased to give a new scale which would be approximately 10% ahead of the Station Officer at the minimum and 20% at maximum”.
Having examined the oral and written submissions of both sides, the Court is of the view that the dispute turns on whether or not for the purposes of calculating the differential, the basic rate plus rent allowance is aggregated to arrive at the rate of pay for the Station Officer.
The Unions submitted since the differential was introduced in 1980, Station Officers’ pay has always included the rent allowance and as that allowance has not been subjected to regular pay increases, the recommended differential has been eroded. Management disputed this assertion and stated that the rent allowance has never been taken into account in determining the differential. Both parties accept that Report No 52 is the basis for the respective contentions.
The Court has examined Report No 52 and analysed the figures. It shows as follows: -
•paragraph 12:
“The Station Officer was in receipt of a rent allowance which the staff side felt was reckonable for pay comparison purposes. The salary of the claimant grade[District Officers]ranged from £6,473 - £7592 per annum, while that of the Station Officer ranged from £7,174 - £7,589 per annum (inclusive of rent allowance) as at 1 March 1980.”
•paragraph 16 sets out the rent allowance for a (married) Station Officer as £12.09 per week.•paragraph 27 outlined the findings and at paragraph 27 (c) it gave details of the recommended differentials as outlined above and proceeded to state “thus producing the following revised scale”
- £7,200 x £230 (5) - £8,350
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
5 December, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.