Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93663 Case Number: LCR14368 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CERT - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning: 1. 3rd party evaluation of Regional Training Advisors (RTA) and Training Advisors (TA), 2. Amalgamation of Assistant Training Advisors and instructor, 3. Payment while on maternity leave.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions.
(1) GRADING:
(2) AMALGAMATION:
The Court recommends that the claims of the Union be conceded and
that the necessary arrangements for the evaluation be put in hand
at an early date.
(3) PAYMENT FOR MATERNITY LEAVE:
While the Court is fully aware of the provisions, including
benefits of the Maternity Protection Act and the reasoning behind
the introduction of that Act, it does appear to the Court to be
unreasonable to treat an employee who is absent from work, and in
receipt of State Benefits in accordance with that Act, in a
different manner to employees absent from work and in receipt of
State Benefits in accordance with other Acts. (i.e. benefits not
related to the Maternity Protection Act).
Bearing in mind that the arrangements operated by Cert are in the
interests of the welfare of the employees, it appears to the
Court, as stated above, to be unreasonable not to treat employees
who are absent and in receipt of State Benefits in an equitable
fashion, in so far as the payment of salary is concerned.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that Cert make payment of 100%
of salary to employees in receipt of Maternity Protection Benefit
on surrender of such benefit.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93663 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14368
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CERT
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning:
1. 3rd party evaluation of Regional Training Advisors (RTA)
and Training Advisors (TA),
2. Amalgamation of Assistant Training Advisors and
instructor,
3. Payment while on maternity leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a non commercial state body involved in the
training area. It is funded by the Department of Finance, the
European Social Fund and its own income. It operates under the
aegis of the Department of Tourism and Transport.
The claim for 3rd party evaluation regarding the upgrading of
Regional Training Advisors and Training Advisors has been the
subject of local discussions since 1986, while the claim
concerning amalgamation of Assistant Training Advisors and
instructor is being discussed since 1989. The third issue,
payment for maternity leave, was raised in 1993.
The Company responded to the claims by stating that the
Departments of Finance and Tourism and Transport are responsible
for the Company's policy. Accordingly, it is unable to address
the Union's claims and is not responsible for their rejection.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference took place on 9th September, 1993. No
agreement was reached and it was agreed to refer the dispute to
the Labour Court on 26th November, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 17th January, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The current grading for Regional Training Advisors and
Training Advisors is inadequate. The Union has asked the
Company on several occasions since 1986 to review the
situation but has received no response. An independent 3rd
party is necessary to review the situation and the Company
acknowledges this.
2. The duties and responsibilities of Assistant Training
Advisors are the same as those of the instructor grade. This
is also acknowledged by the Company. The only difference
between the two grades is the salary scale:
# #
Assistant Training Advisor - 10 points 11,772 to 16,061
Instructor grade - 16 points 11,770 to 18,610
3. Employees of the Company who are on maternity leave
receive 70% of their wages under the Social Welfare Act 1981.
This is out of line with the public sector, where full pay
while on maternity leave is usual. Employees of the Company
who are on sick leave receive full pay for the first 6 months
and half pay for the next six months. Workers who take
maternity leave are being discriminated against.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's policies regarding the 3 issues are
dictated by the Departments of Finance, and Tourism and
Transport. This is the same procedure for all state bodies.
2. In 1989, the Department of Finance commissioned a review
of staffing in the Company, with the view of reducing staff.
This review will effect the issues involved in the Union's
claims and, until it has been completed, the Company cannot
respond to these claims.
3. The Company is under instructions from the Department of
Finance that it cannot accede to any cost increasing claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered all of the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions.
(1) GRADING:
(2) AMALGAMATION:
The Court recommends that the claims of the Union be conceded and
that the necessary arrangements for the evaluation be put in hand
at an early date.
(3) PAYMENT FOR MATERNITY LEAVE:
While the Court is fully aware of the provisions, including
benefits of the Maternity Protection Act and the reasoning behind
the introduction of that Act, it does appear to the Court to be
unreasonable to treat an employee who is absent from work, and in
receipt of State Benefits in accordance with that Act, in a
different manner to employees absent from work and in receipt of
State Benefits in accordance with other Acts. (i.e. benefits not
related to the Maternity Protection Act).
Bearing in mind that the arrangements operated by Cert are in the
interests of the welfare of the employees, it appears to the
Court, as stated above, to be unreasonable not to treat employees
who are absent and in receipt of State Benefits in an equitable
fashion, in so far as the payment of salary is concerned.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that Cert make payment of 100%
of salary to employees in receipt of Maternity Protection Benefit
on surrender of such benefit.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th March, 1994. Tom McGrath
C.O'N.//A.L. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.