Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 28 November 2023
36. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Public Expenditure, National Development Plan Delivery and Reform the number of binding Labour Court recommendations on pay rates for public servants that have yet to be implemented; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52127/23]
View answerI ask the Minister about the NDP delivery and reform and the number of binding Labour Court recommendations on pay rates for public servants that have yet to be implemented. Will he make a statement on the matter?
The implementation of specific recommendations, awards or adjudications from the Labour Court or other equivalent industrial relations bodies, are matters for the relevant employer or Department, as appropriate, in the first instance. The Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform has responsibility for the terms and conditions of civil servants, as provided for under section 17 of the Civil Service Regulation Act.
As the Deputy may be aware, civil servants do not have access to the Labour Court. Civil Service industrial relations are managed through a mechanism known as the scheme of conciliation and arbitration for the Civil Service. In addition, the Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform has the central role in delivering public service pay agreements.
Public service pay has been governed by a system of collective agreements since the Croke Park agreement was negotiated in 2010. These collective agreements have helped to ensure that public pay is managed in a sustainable, affordable and orderly manner. The agreements have recognised the importance of stable industrial relations and have supported the maintenance of a well-managed industrial relations environment.
The current public service pay agreement, which all public service unions and associations have signed up to, is Building Momentum - A New Public Service Agreement 2021-2022. This agreement was extended in August 2022 to December 2023. There are a number of features in the Building Momentum agreement that I would like to take the opportunity to highlight. It provides for headline benefits over its lifetime, amounting to 9.5%, which include both general round increases and sectoral bargaining. In respect of public servants at lower pay levels, the extended Building Momentum provides for increases of 12.5% over its lifetime, which is just over 4% per annum. The agreement also sets out a new way to address sectoral issues known as sectoral bargaining. The purpose of the sectoral bargaining process is to deal with outstanding adjudications, commitments, recommendations, awards and claims. An amount equal to 1% of the pay bill was provided for this purpose. The parties agreed that no cost-increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment can be progressed outside of sectoral bargaining. Parties also committed to the ongoing reform and development of the public service, to industrial peace and to ensuring that problems in respect of matters covered by the agreement were dealt with in an effective way through dispute resolution procedures.
I thank the Minister of State and note his response. The majority of public sector pay is dealt with collectively, and I understand the logic and rationale behind that. From the outset, I wish to say that I have a family member who is involved in a pay dispute.
I wish to discuss the pay disparity between medical scientists and clinical biochemists. Medical scientists are paid approximately 7% or 8% less than their biochemist counterparts. They were involved in industrial action, but recently paused it and returned to the Labour Court for subsequent negotiations. This leads me to the Devine report, which was published this year and made a variety of recommendations. I may get to the report in my next contribution.
What the Minister would say is that this is primarily a matter for the Minister for Health, as I presume the HSE is the employer. Since the person is a public sector employee but not a civil servant, he or she is likely to be able to raise his or her dispute through the Labour Court system. The Minister for Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform would not be the deciding person. Rather, this would be a matter for the chief executive of the HSE, reporting to the Minister for Health. I advise the Deputy to speak directly to that Minister on this matter either at an Oireachtas committee or during oral questions.
I thank the Minister of State for that advice.
The medical scientists’ group engaged with the Labour Court in good faith. Out of that engagement, the Devine report was commissioned. It categorically and unequivocally stated that in the overwhelming majority of work in both professions, there existed no evidence of a material distinction between the grades’ roles and responsibilities. The report went further and suggested that the salary scale of staff in senior grade positions from both professions be adjusted to reflect same. The frustration for medical scientists is that there is a report, which they engaged on in good faith, dating back to January 2023 in which this was one of the main recommendations, yet here we are towards the tail end of the year and we have made little or no progress on the issue. This dispute has been going on for a long time.
I will take the Minister of State’s advice and raise the matter with the Minister for Health.
I am glad that the Deputy is going to take it up directly with him. Everyone agrees that the Labour Court and the WRC have served us well. There are a relatively small number of industrial disputes in Ireland and those that do happen are often resolved amicably. The Labour Court plays a role in being able to decide and recommend on what is fair. It is then up to the employer and employees to work that out and come to an agreement, follow that advice or see how it should be followed.
This matter is primarily one for the Minister for Health. I would advise the Deputy to speak to him.
