Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95699 Case Number: LCR15149 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DUN LAOGHAIRE V.E.C. (Represented by THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - IMPACT |
Rates of pay of community employment supervisors.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties and a letter from FAS on the issue.
While the arrangements in relation to pay were that the rates were
set for the duration of the project, this presumably was in the
context of the project being of a short-term duration. This
obviously is not now the case with many individuals working this
arrangement for many years.
The Court is of the view that this is unfair to the individuals
concerned.
However, the Court is also of the view that this issue, having
national implications should be addressed centrally rather than on
a local basis and so recommends.
Division: Mr Flood Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95699 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15149
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
DUN LAOGHAIRE V.E.C.
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
IMPACT
SUBJECT:
1. Rates of pay of community employment supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of community employment supervisors. The supervisors
in question are part of a FAS Community Employment Scheme
(Community Employment Schemes replaced Social Employment
Schemes in April 1994), which is sponsored by Dun Laoghaire
Vocational Education Committee (V.E.C.). While the
recruitment and engagement of personnel is a matter for the
V.E.C. the scheme is funded by FAS.
The aim of the Scheme is to provide the resources necessary
to work at improving local environment, developing local
tourism leisure activities and a range of other community
services. Primarily the scheme caters for the long term
unemployed. Public bodies and voluntary organisations may
sponsor such projects.
In January, 1994 the Union lodged a claim with the V.E.C. on
behalf of the supervisors. The Union considered that such
posts compared favourably with the clerical/administration
structures within the V.E.C., specifically grades 3, 4 and 5.
The V.E.C. rejected such a comparison on the basis that the
workers concerned are not officers of the V.E.C.
Following the introduction of the Community Employment
Projects in April, 1994 discussions took place between the
parties following which it was agreed to pay the supervisors
on a par with the wages grant paid by FAS to this grade in
the voluntary sector i.e. £270 per week.
In May, 1995 the Union re-submitted the claim. It argues
that the current rate of pay of the workers is inadequate and
does not reflect the responsibilities of the supervisors'
position, and that the matter needs to be urgently addressed.
The V.E.C.'s position is that it relies upon FAS for the
funding of the supervisors wages and in the absence of any
additional FAS funding the V.E.C. cannot meet the Union's
claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 25th November, 1995
but agreement was not reached and the matter was referred to
the Labour Court on 13th December, 1995 under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 11th March, 1996. (The earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is the Union's understanding that the rate of pay of
the supervisors was determined by general reference to
the average industrial wage. The duties and
responsibilities of the average industrial worker are
not comparable to those of the supervisors concerned.
2. The original claim seeking pay links with grades 3,4,5
was submitted prior to the change over to community
employment which involved the introduction of
development modules. Those modules represent a
fundamental upgrading in the skills and responsibilities
of the supervisors.
3. Since July, 1994 all public service workers have
received two increases under the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work and increases under the local
bargaining clause of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress have also been applied. Further
increases are due in 1996/1997. No such increases have
been applied to the claimants' rate of £270 per week.
V.E.C.'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Any adjustment in the supervisors rates of pay unless
accompanied by additional funding from FAS, will impact
on:
(a) The continued financial viability of the Community
Employment Project and affect the valuable
contribution which FAS has made to the training of
the unemployed and the general benefits of such
schemes to the community.
(b) The staffing structures agreed by the V.E.C.
arising from its sponsorship of such schemes and in
particular the future employment of assistant
supervisors to four of the seven projects.
2. The Community Employment Scheme is a National scheme, it
is not appropriate to build a claim based on local
comparators. FAS wages grants are not, nor ever were,
linked to National Pay Agreements.
3. Concession of this claim will have national
implications, particularly for statutory bodies who are
sponsoring such schemes. There are 1,993 other
community employment supervisors employed nationally
(FAS Figures).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the
parties and a letter from FAS on the issue.
While the arrangements in relation to pay were that the rates were
set for the duration of the project, this presumably was in the
context of the project being of a short-term duration. This
obviously is not now the case with many individuals working this
arrangement for many years.
The Court is of the view that this is unfair to the individuals
concerned.
However, the Court is also of the view that this issue, having
national implications should be addressed centrally rather than on
a local basis and so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.