The recently announced pay rises for three top individuals in the Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) will be up for debate at the next national council meeting, following anger among some grassroots members.
Two motions were put forward and passed at an executive meeting in Co. Donegal last night (Wednesday, May 11), which will now go before the national council next Tuesday (May 17), according to public relations (PR) officer of the IFA Donegal branch, Tom Boyd.
One motion seeks reconsideration of the pay increases, while the other was a motion of no confidence in the remuneration committee which had passed the pay rises, Boyd said.
The IFA recently confirmed a pay increase for its president, Tim Cullinan; deputy president, Brian Rushe; and director general, Damian McDonald, following review by the IFA remuneration committee.
Pay increases
The review included a rise in Tim Cullinan’s salary from €120,000 to €140,000, and Brian Rushe will be paid €40,000, up from €35,000.
McDonald’s salary increased from €185,350 (plus an employer pension contribution of €27,802) to €215,998, which, the IFA said, was “in line with the pay scale for the secretary general of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM)”.
Speaking to Agriland, former IFA regional chair, Nigel Renaghan said many people are not happy with the situation. He explained:
“There is a feeling that this will go on for a few days and then it is all forgotten about, but this is not the case. People are upset and feel like this is a top-down approach in relation to how things are being done.”
The Donegal IFA officer explained that the no-confidence motion was put forward based on the reason that the committee is not serving its purpose, as it was elected by members on the ground, however, pay rises were passed without consultation.
There should be no pay increases for less responsibility, according to Renaghan, who referred to a change in McDonald’s duties, which, he said, are now different following renewal of his contract as director general.
Director general
The primary duty of the director general – in his initial contract before it expired last year – was the responsibility for staff, formulating policy in conjunction with commodity chairs, and to work closely with the president, according to Renaghan.
The responsibility of policy formulation lies now with IFA director of policy and chief economist, Tadhg Buckley, who deals with that on behalf of the farmers, Renaghan said.
“The staff used to report to McDonald any issues or problems; now we have a situation where that responsibility has also been given to Buckley,” he said.
The only staff that McDonald actually deals with now is mainly the head office, Renaghan added. He continued:
“If he is not formulating policy, if he is not dealing with all the staff, what is he doing on a daily basis? I think it shouldn’t be acceptable to have less responsibility, while getting paid more money.”
Renaghan explained that when McDonald joined the IFA in 2016, this was “in the back of a lot of troubles within the organisation” and the director general’s pay was benchmarked to the DAFM.
There is a huge difference in terms of the budget available to the department, as well as in the number of staff compared to the IFA, he added.
“It was fine at the time, but I would say we should be making comparisons, considering the number of staff and the budget that we have and pay someone accordingly,” Renaghan said.
‘Bad PR for the IFA’
There should be a fixed time to serve as director general in the IFA; it should not be a job for life, “it is the wrong message for us to be sending out to people”, he added.
Concerns were also raised by Renaghan that this would stop staff from progressing within the IFA, as the organisation is trying to get more younger people involved.
Boyd added that these are very uncertain times in farming with input price increases and the struggles that farmers are currently facing. He commented:
“The increases received by the director general, the president and the deputy president add up to a lot of money. Perhaps it was not the best time to accept these increases or even consider them.
“It was bad PR for the IFA to take such a move at such a volatile time,” according to Boyd.