Unions clash over confidentiality of public service pay review

The public may never learn the details of the research that will lead to recommendations on pay rises for State employees drawn up by the new Public Service Pay Commission, trade unions have indicated.

In a submission on the role and methodology of the planned body, public service unions said it was essential that the commission undertake research on earnings in the private sector before coming to its conclusions on public pay recommendations.

However, the public service committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (Ictu) warned that information on private sector earnings was only likely to be provided on the basis of confidentiality.

“This will, undoubtedly, generate difficulties in terms of transparency that may have to be an unintended consequence of the need to ensure accuracy and fairness,” it said.

“The priority ought to be to make fair comparisons with the various grades/categories in the public service.

“Under no circumstances could it be deemed acceptable for comparison to be made with the deplorable practices in some parts of the private sector.”

However, the employers’ group Ibec, in its submission, said all research analysis undertaken should be made publicly available.

One of the main controversies around the public service benchmarking exercise in the early 2000s was that it never published research findings to support its recommendations for pay increases.

Like-for-like

In their submission to the Government on the new pay commission, public service trade unions said it was vital that public servants’ pay was not compared to some crude average of all pay in the private sector but rather that comparisons were made on a true “like-for-like” basis.

The unions said it would be “inconceivable” for the new commission to make a discount on pay to take account of job security in comparison with the private sector.

They maintained that the recent economic crisis had shown that a large number of public service staff on temporary and fixed-term contracts “did not enjoy any security of tenure and the significant numbers involved highlight the fact that tenure is a considerably less significant factor in any external comparison than it was in the past”.

Pension changes

Unions also argued that when comparing pensions in the public and private sectors, the commission would need to have regard “to the huge changes” in the public service superannuation arrangements in recent years.

“In particular, all staff appointed since 2004 have a raised retirement age of 65 years. Staff appointed since 2013 are part of a career average scheme, rather than final salary scheme, with an effective minimum retirement age of 68.

“A 12 per cent discount, as applied by the 2007 benchmarking body, is excessive in light of these figures.”

Ibec said the new commission should be given the flexibility by Government to “prioritise adjusting pay rates in particular areas of the public sector where skill shortages are leading to severe recruitment and retention problems”.

“Money spent on across- the-board pay awards is money that is not going on recruiting new staff, retention of specific skills within the public sector or on much-needed public investment.

“ It is crucial that all decisions are informed by the broad needs of the country.”

Ibec said an effective mechanism to assess the market value of jobs in the public service would be to increase external recruitment.

It said membership of the new commission should be balanced between sectoral interests and private sector expertise, and that the chairperson should be recruited from abroad.

Ibec also argued that focus by the commission on pay alone would represent “a missed opportunity”.

“Quite simply, pay does not equal improved effectiveness. It is important that the new public sector pay agreement delivers the necessary and very significant transformation of work practices that are still required.”