Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95216 Case Number: LCR14796 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUN LAOGHAIRE VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning the salary of a supervisor.
Recommendation:
The Court, in considering this case, is presented with a variety
of payment arrangements, all of which the employer argues are
valid, given the nature of the projects involved and the financing
structures.
However, in a small number of cases these arguments seem to have
been set aside, again for a variety of reasons.
Taking into account all of the issues involved in the particular
case, the Court is of the view that the claim would best be
resolved by the payment, by the employer, of an ex gratia sum of
#1,000 to the claimant, in full and final settlement of this
claim.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95216 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14796
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DUN LAOGHAIRE VOCATIONAL EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
IRISH MUNICIPAL PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the salary of a supervisor.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns one worker who was employed by the
Vocational Educational Committee (V.E.C.) as co-ordinator of
the publications project (producing the '46A' magazine) of
its Social Employment Schemes (S.E.S.). Her employment
commenced on the 29th of March, 1993, on a probationary
basis. She was on a weekly rate of pay of #207.99 which,
after one year's service, was increased to #254.79 per week.
It was subsequently increased to #270 per week to reflect the
rise in standard S.E.S./Community Enterprise Programme rates.
The Union claims that, as the scheme to which the worker was
appointed had been in operation for some time, there was no
need to pay her the lower rate (#207.99). The V.E.C.
contends that the lower rate was to apply until the viability
of the project was established.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference
under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court, on the 30th of March, 1995, in accordance
with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Court investigated the dispute on the 29th of May, 1995,
the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has been considerable difficulty experienced in
establishing the basis of payments, with the 6 S.E.S.
co-ordinators appearing to receive 6 different rates of
pay. The various reasons advanced by the V.E.C. in
relation to the various rates serves only to highlight
the difficulties in securing a coherent response from
management to the worker's claim.
2. The contention that a worker should be paid a lower
rate during probation is rejected. This principle does
not apply in the V.E.C. itself, nor under the new
Community Employment Programme. There is no reason why
it should apply under the old S.E.S. Scheme.
3. The argument that staff should be paid at a lower rate
while the financial viability of the project is reviewed
is irrelevant in this case. The viability of the
publication project was well proven by the time of her
appointment.
4. The Union is aware of the rate of #254.79 being applied
in cases where the participating numbers on a project
amounted to 25. In this case, the number of
participants on the project amounted to 25 in March,
1993, 30 in April, 1993, increasing to 38 in August,
1993.
5. The V.E.C. has been paying the rate of #254.79 to some
staff since as early as 1991, which pre-dates the
worker's employment. It has been accepted by the V.E.C.
as the correct rate for all co-ordinators (since
superseded by the flat #270 Community Employment rate).
V.E.C's ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The mechanism agreed for funding S.E.S. and new C.E.
projects is per-capita based. The budget and project is
for a fixed 12-month period. It is necessary to
establish clearly in advance the salary of the
co-ordinator.
2. Should the claimant's case be upheld, each of the
co-ordinators employed by the V.E.C. would be entitled
to lodge a similar claim, with retrospection to the date
of original appointment. In order to pay such
increases, the V.E.C. would have to seek additional
funding from FAS, who would argue that no funds are
available and that payments, if any, would be in breach
of agreed contracts. It is the responsibility of the
co-ordinator to ensure that his/her project is fully
funded within the grant aid provided by FAS.
3. The claim lodged by the Union is not justified. A
contract was freely entered into by the parties and is
being honoured by the V.E.C. On completion of her
probationary period, every effort was made to recognise,
within available resources, the excellent work done by
the worker.
4. With the introduction of Community Employment, the rate
of pay was standardised for all supervisors employed by
Dun Laoghaire V.E.C. at #270 per week. This is the
maximum grant authorised by FAS in respect of C.E.
supervisors employed in voluntary sectors. It is V.E.C.
policy to not discriminate between supervisors employed
by the public sector and those employed in other
sectors. The duties of the post are the same - the rate
of pay is now the same.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, in considering this case, is presented with a variety
of payment arrangements, all of which the employer argues are
valid, given the nature of the projects involved and the financing
structures.
However, in a small number of cases these arguments seem to have
been set aside, again for a variety of reasons.
Taking into account all of the issues involved in the particular
case, the Court is of the view that the claim would best be
resolved by the payment, by the employer, of an ex gratia sum of
#1,000 to the claimant, in full and final settlement of this
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th June, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.