Dept rejects pay rise case for WRC Adjudication Officers
The Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform has rejected a business case put forward by another Government department for an increase in the €525 per diem rate for 31 external WRC Adjudicator Officers. That is disclosed in a new Labour Court ruling concerning a trade dispute claim by the 31 external Workplace Relation Commission (WRC) Adjudication Officers against the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. The Adjudication Officers usually decide on the merits of disputes at workplaces across the country but continue to be embroiled in their own with the State mainly over pay. The Adjudicators' dispute arises mainly from their current level of pay, which is not linked to the public sector and so has not risen in line with recent national agreements since 2017 when the current rate of €525 per diem rate was set. In the Labour Court ruling, chairman, Kevin Foley reveals that the Department of Public Expenditure rejected the business case for the pay increase put forward by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in July. Mr Foley said the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment supported the case for the pay rate increase in the business case put forward. Mr Foley stated that the Department of Public Expenditure refused to sanction the proposed increase in the "daily rate" because, it says, "sufficient evidence has not been provided in the business case submitted to justify sanction of an increased rate". Mr Foley stated that the "daily rate" paid to adjudicators "appears to be the main underlying cause of the within alleged trade dispute, albeit the 31 adjudicators have submitted that they seek improvements in relation to writing up days and fall days also". The 31 external WRC Adjudication Officers contend that they are workers engaged in a trade dispute with their employer, the Dept of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. However, in response, the Department wrote to the Labour Court to state: "It does not appear to us that external adjudicators are workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969". Mr Foley also stated that the letter stated "it does not appear that any 'trade dispute' exists between the adjudication officers and the Department in this case and therefore in these circumstances the Department would not appear to be the correct respondent". No one from the Department appeared at hearing and Mr Foley stated that "it is a matter of grave concern that the Department of Public Expenditure should instruct/advise a Government Department to decline an invitation from the Court to attend the hearing of the Court in this matter". "At minimum, the failure of the alleged employer in this alleged trade dispute to attend the hearing of the Court has deprived the Court of the opportunity to fully comprehend the position of that party in relation to the matters in dispute," he said. "This lack of engagement is particularly problematic when the statutory obligation resting upon the Court is to issue a Recommendation regardless of whether the alleged employer participates in the hearing or not," he added. Mr Foley stated that the Department of Enterprise has advised the Court that if the court were to make a recommendation in favour of the 31 individuals, the Department would not have authority to comply with such a recommendation. In the court recommendation, Mr Foley has recommended that the Department of Enterprise engage again, in full consultation with the WRC, on the matter so as to develop a broader and deeper business case analysis of all matters relevant to a fresh assessment of the claim before the court. He said that such an analysis would include an assessment of the contention that, in practical terms, an allowance of 48 writing days per annum is insufficient to allow for the writing up of decisions by Adjudicators; a consideration of the operation of the "fall days" system and a consideration of the justification for an adjustment in the "daily rate". He said that provided that such an analysis is fair, reasonable and comprehensive, it should be possible for both parties, exercising realism, pragmatism and common sense, to arrive at an outcome to the within alleged trade dispute which can be considered realistic and reasonable by all parties. He said that the analysis should be completed within a period of three months such that a fresh business case can then be made to the Department of Public Expenditure by the Department of Enterprise. Reporting by Gordon Deegan
