Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91176 Case Number: LCR13361 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH RAIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a pay increase under the terms of clause 3 of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Serviceas provided for in the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties
both oral and written and finds that this claim falls to be dealt
with under the terms of the Agreement on Pay between the I.C.T.U.,
F.I.E. and C.I.F. As the claim is cost increasing it is precluded
under Clause 4 of that agreement. Accordingly the Court rejects
concession of the claim.
In rejecting the claim the Court wishes to make it clear it has
made no judgement in regard to the merits of the claim which the
Court considers should be the subject of discussions between the
parties when facilities for the pursuit of such claims are in
place.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91176 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13361
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH RAIL
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a pay increase under the terms of
clause 3 of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Serviceas provided
for in the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claim is on behalf of approximately 230 workers in
the catering department of the Company. Subsection 3 of the
elaboration of clause 3 of the agreement on pay in the Public
Service states as follows:-
"3.3 Where the group concerned has not received an award under
this Clause or an award under Clause 3.2 or Clause 3.3 of the
1986 Public Service Pay Agreement, any increase shall be
implemented as follows:
(a) 40% may be paid with effect from 1st July, 1989
(b) 30% may be paid with effect from 1st April, 1990
(c) 30% may be paid with effect from 1st October, 1990."
The Unions maintain that the Company is a Public Service employer
and that the claim falls within the application of Clause 3.3 of
the elaboration of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Service.
The Union quantifies the pay increase sought at #7.75 per week.
The Company rejects the claim. No agreement was reached at local
level discussions and the matter was referred on 26th October,
1990 to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court. A
conciliation conference was held on 14th February, 1991 under the
auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. No agreement was
reached on the issue and on 25th March, 1991 the Labour Relations
Commission referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance
with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on 10th July, 1991 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a special pay increase under clause 3
of the elaboration of Clause 3 of the Agreement on Pay in the
Public Service. This increase is claimed for the workers
concerned to bring them into line with comparable workers in
both the private and public sectors.
2. The workers in the catering section are the lowest paid
in the Company. They have a difficulty when negotiating pay
increases as they do not have an established pay relationship
with comparable workers. Their rates of pay are lower than
the rates applicable in the public and private sectors. The
elaboration of clause 3 of the P.N.R. should be applied to
bring their rates of pay closer to the normal industrial wage.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim is a significant cost-increasing one and
is precluded under the agreement made with the trade unions
for payment of the wage round increases under the P.N.R. The
Company has not got the resources to meet claims for special
increases in pay.
2. Clause 3 of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Service
(and subsequent Elaboration) does not apply in the context of
the agreement under which the 27th Round wage increases were
implemented in the Company. This is clearly illustrated by
the fact that no other claim has been made under clause 3
during the almost three year duration of the agreement.
3. The commercial State-sponsored bodies are specifically
excluded from the terms of the corresponding Clause 3 of the
Agreement on Pay and Conditions under P.E.S.P. which was
ratified by the social partners on 20th February, 1991.
4. There is no relationship and never has been between the
rates of pay and/or conditions of employment of staff employed
in the Company's catering section and catering staff employed
in the Public sector or other employments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered the submissions of the parties
both oral and written and finds that this claim falls to be dealt
with under the terms of the Agreement on Pay between the I.C.T.U.,
F.I.E. and C.I.F. As the claim is cost increasing it is precluded
under Clause 4 of that agreement. Accordingly the Court rejects
concession of the claim.
In rejecting the claim the Court wishes to make it clear it has
made no judgement in regard to the merits of the claim which the
Court considers should be the subject of discussions between the
parties when facilities for the pursuit of such claims are in
place.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
______________________
26th July, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
A.S./J.C.