Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89631 Case Number: LCR12628 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: THE IRISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO - and - AN EX-EMPLOYEE |
Claim for the retrospective payment of salary increases due.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the arguments put forward by the parties and
taking account of the pay developments in the Society since 1986,
the Court does not find grounds for recommending concession of
this claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89631 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12628
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 20(1)
PARTIES: THE IRISH SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO
CHILDREN
and
AN EX-EMPLOYEE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the retrospective payment of salary increases due.
BACKGROUND:
2. The claimant worked as a Project Leader with the Society from
September, 1979 until he resigned his post in November, 1986. He
claims that various pay increases were not applied to his salary
during that period and that an amount in the region of #4,000 is
owed to him. Labour Court Recommendation 11678 dated 11th
February, 1989 dealt with a claim on behalf of forty seven of the
Society's workers. The claim was for the payment of retrospective
pay awards and the restoration of pay parity with similar grades
working in Health Boards. The Society was not in a position to
meet the payments due because of its serious financial position.
In dealing with the retrospective element of the claim the Court
recommended:-
"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."
The increases as recommended by the Court were implemented in
full. The claimant lodged a claim for retrospective payment due
to him arising from salary increases. The Society did not respond
to the claim and subsequently the claimant requested a Labour
Court conciliation conference. As the Society did not agree to a
conciliation conference the claimant requested a full Labour Court
hearing under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969,
having agreed to be bound by the decision of the Court. The Court
investigated the dispute in Wexford on 24th October, 1989.
CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The total amount due in retrospective payment, based on
the difference between the salary scale of the Project Leader
in the Society and the Health Board Senior Social Worker, is
#4,278. (Details of salary scales for both grades for the
period 1st September, 1983 - 1st May 1986 supplied to the
Court). Salary scales and conditions of employment for both
grades are equal. This was agreed with the Society and Union
in 1973.
2. Assurances were given that the increases due would be
paid. It was never agreed that a claim for their payment
would be waived.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. No worker received pay increases for the period 1986/87.
Negotiations provided for pay increases from January, 1988, to
improve workers existing and future salaries.
2. Other employees who left the Society have not requested
or received retrospective payments. The Union has not claimed
any such payments for members who have left.
3. Labour Court Recommendation 11678 recommended:-
"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".
If retrospective payments were to be made to former workers,
including the claimant, the Society's ability to move towards
parity with Health Board rates would be undermined.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the arguments put forward by the parties and
taking account of the pay developments in the Society since 1986,
the Court does not find grounds for recommending concession of
this claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
7th November, 1989 ----------------
A.McG/U.S. Chairman