A dispute unfolded between the Corporate Enforcement Authority and An Garda Síochána regarding the responsibility of footing the bill for a particular allowance given to transferred gardaí members. The creation of the new Corporate Enforcement Authority included the transitioning of 16 gardaí to conduct investigations into financial delinquencies.
A point of contention arose concerning the mode of remunerating these individuals, particularly with the ‘briefing time’ which is commonly known as the parade time. This allowance enables gardaí to debrief and update themselves on incidents from the preceding shift, equivalent to a compensation of 15 minutes of pay each day. Freedom of Information released emails indicate that the Corporate Enforcement Authority informed An Garda Síochána that it would not support this payment.
The Garda responded to the agency in the summer with a message that argued that excluding briefing time from overtime costs was implausible as this period, requiring the gardaí member’s presence 15 minutes before starting their shift, constituted as overtime. Their chief admin officer’s email supported this stance, suggesting the Corporate Enforcement Authority should shoulder these allowances as part of the overtime payments.
However, the authority contradicted this, stating that while Garda budget may record briefing time as overtime, this cost was beyond their discretionary purview. They firmly asserted their refusal to cater for the briefing time pay in an email. An Garda Síochána reacted by asserting that the chief admin officer’s insistence on the obligation of paying for briefing time would warrant an escalation of the payment refusal issue.
The situation was further muddled by ovetime pay disagreements. Suggestions from Garda accountants in a series of emails brought to light potential miscalculations by the Corporate Enforcement Authority that omitted the ‘double-time’ for overtime hours worked by the gardaí. One email from the Garda finance department suggested a lack of capacity to scrutinise the authority’s detailed workings while noting the absence of double-time hours allocated despite clear evidence. The authority was criticised for omitting proof of members working a minimum of 1.75 hours of double-time overtime over a quarterly period.
The communication further outlined that the financial information sought by the corporate regulator exceeded customary requests, intimating that a formal data sharing agreement might need to be reviewed.
In subsequent correspondences, the regulator stated it would absorb costs for the entirety of 2023, but shouldn’t be held accountable for any overtime payments in December 2022. It further highlighted that it should not bear the expenses incurred by transferred police officers working on cases “prior to secondment” to the corporate regulator.
The regulator cautioned that failure to provide comprehensive invoices may cause delays in payments, as the Corporate Enforcement Authority would only disburse payments after all invoiced expenses have been thoroughly validated with internal approval records.
When questioned on issues pertaining to briefing time, overtime, and expense payments, the Corporate Enforcement Authority chose not to comment.