Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD87937 Case Number: LCR11678 Section / Act: S67 Parties: IRISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN - and - LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION |
Claim on behalf of 47 workers for the payment of retrospective pay awards, the restoration of pay parity with similar grades employed in the Health Boards, and a significant improvement in the rates of pay for low paid workers.
Recommendation:
11. The Court notes that the Society accepts that the Union is
justified in its aspiration for parity of the wage rates of the
claimants with equivalent grades in the Health Service. The Court
also accepts, however, that this can only be attained when the
Society's financial position allows.
Having considered all aspects of the case, the Court recommends
that all claims - including the claim for retrospection - should
be met by acceptance by the Union of the Management package of
September, 1987, modified as follows -
(a) 3% from 1st January, 1988.
3.50% from 1st January, 1989.
6% from 1st January, 1990.
(b) the proposed increase of #1,000 p.a. to the nine
Pre-School Assistants, one Nursing Assistant and one
Receptionist earning less than #6,500 should be
increased to #1,100.
and
(c) the position concerning progress towards parity with
Health Board staff to be reviewed in January, 1989, in
the light of the financial position then obtaining.
Division: Mr Fitzgerald Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD87937 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11678
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: IRISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN
(I.S.P.C.C.)
(Represented by the Federated Union of Employers)
and
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICES UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim on behalf of 47 workers for the payment of retrospective
pay awards, the restoration of pay parity with similar grades
employed in the Health Boards, and a significant improvement in
the rates of pay for low paid workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In the latter part of 1985 and in early 1986, the I.S.P.C.C.
informed the Union that it was imposing a pay freeze from January,
1986, and that it would not pay retrospective pay awards (last
phase of pay increases for basic grade social workers due from 1st
September, 1985 and payment of an increase for administrative
grades due from 1st October, 1983) increments due on 1st April,
1986, or 3% National increase due from 1st May, 1986.
3. The Union sought a meeting with the Society to discuss the
matter. Talks were deferred as the Society appointed a Task Force
to review the services provided, examine the administrative
structures and its financial position.
4. Following the Task Force's report both parties entered into
negotiations on a number of issues. On the question of pay the
Union sought payment of the 25th pay round to all grades;
quantified as 3% from 1st May, 1986, 2% from 1st January, 1987,
and 2% from 1st May, 1987. In addition to the 25th pay round the
Union claimed the payment of special awards which had been granted
to equivalent grades employed by Health Boards and other Health
Agencies (details supplied to the Court), and payment of a
substantial increase to low paid workers.
5. The Society put the following offer to the Union by letter
dated 5th May, 1987 -
(1) The Society agrees that it will aspire to parity with
Health Board scales by 31st December, 1990 subject to
the over-riding requirement that it shall have achieved
a satisfactory level of reserves by that date.
(2) All full time and permanent staff currently on a salary
of less #6,500 p.a. will be granted an increase in
salary of #1,000 p.a. effective from 1st January, 1988.
(3) The following increases will be granted to all staff -
3% from 1st July, 1988.
2% from 1st July, 1989.
3% from 1st July, 1990.
The above offer was subject to the Union waiving its claim for
retrospective payments.
6. Before any further progress could be made on the pay issue a
dispute occurred between the parties over a proposed redundancy
which culminated in a 5 month strike commencing on 16th May, 1987.
During the strike the parties had a number of meetings (including
a Labour Court hearing held on 6th July, 1987, - LCR No. 11310
refers) to discuss various issues including pay. As part of a
settlement the parties undertook to resume discussions on the pay
issue with a view to reaching agreement by 30th November, 1987.
7. The Union rejected the Society's offer of 5th May, 1987, and
stated that they were seeking a package of proposals which would
ensure the restoration of pay parity, a significant improvement in
the position of the low paid and which includes the terms set out
in the Programme for National Recovery. Retrospection to be paid
or that any moderation in this position would depend on the
overall terms of the pay package on offer.
8. The Society subsequently modified its offer on 9th September,
1987, to provide for a phased increase of 11%. This was not
acceptable to the Union and the matter was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court on 19th November, 1987.
A conciliation conference was held on 27th November, 1987. As no
agreement was possible both parties agreed to refer the matter to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on 18th January, 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Society's offer will not restore pay parity with the
equivalent grades employed in the Health Boards, which the
workers concerned had traditionally enjoyed prior to the
imposition of the pay freeze. (Details of the relative pay
scales and the workers' positions on these scales supplied to
the Court).
2. The pay terms of the Programme for National Recovery
and incremental progression are essential components in the
Union's claim for restoration of parity with Health Board
rates. The Union is satisfied that the Department of
Health/Health Boards would help with the payment of the terms
of the National Plan if requested, as is the case with other
agencies in receipt of a grant-in-aid.
3. The Union is seeking a minimum salary level of #6233 p.a.
for the low paid with a commitment to meaningful negotiations
on the introduction of an appropriate salary scale for
nursing assistants, - the scale to attract the terms of the
National Plan.
4. The Union's position on retrospection all along has been
that the immediate restoration of parity with Health Board
rates would have greatly influenced the Unions decision on
the question of waiving all claims to the money owed. The
issue is by no means straightforward as the Court will note
that the amount involved is substantial for some of the staff
involved and there is no equity in the sacrifice the Society
are seeking from all members of staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Society has consistently argued that its ability to
offer pay increases is determined by its financial
circumstances.
2. Management believe that an offer of 8% was on the point
of being accepted by staff prior to the trade dispute. While
attitudes may have changed because of the dispute, the net
effect is that the Society's financial situation has
deteriorated, (details supplied to the Court) and the Society
would have been justified in withdrawing its earlier
proposals on financial grounds. In the event, it has not
done so but has re-affirmed its proposal of 9 September,
1987. The proposal itself is favourable in the light of the
financial circumstances in the Society. In particular, the
lower paid staff will receive significant increases over the
period in question. The Court will also note that the
Society will aspire to parity with Health Board scales
subject to the over-riding requirement of a satisfactory
level of reserves.
3. The Society's proposal of 9 September is the maximum it
can realistically offer staff. If the Society was to commit
itself to a level of increase in excess of this, further
economies would be required to fund the increase.
Inevitably, this would lead to cuts in services and staffing
levels.
RECOMMENDATION:
11. The Court notes that the Society accepts that the Union is
justified in its aspiration for parity of the wage rates of the
claimants with equivalent grades in the Health Service. The Court
also accepts, however, that this can only be attained when the
Society's financial position allows.
Having considered all aspects of the case, the Court recommends
that all claims - including the claim for retrospection - should
be met by acceptance by the Union of the Management package of
September, 1987, modified as follows -
(a) 3% from 1st January, 1988.
3.50% from 1st January, 1989.
6% from 1st January, 1990.
(b) the proposed increase of #1,000 p.a. to the nine
Pre-School Assistants, one Nursing Assistant and one
Receptionist earning less than #6,500 should be
increased to #1,100.
and
(c) the position concerning progress towards parity with
Health Board staff to be reviewed in January, 1989, in
the light of the financial position then obtaining.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
11th February, 1988 Nicholas Fitzgerald
M.D./P.W. Deputy Chairman