Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95658 Case Number: LCR15076 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CENTRES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED AT LIMERICK, DROGHEDA, (Represented by DUBLIN AND CLARE) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Parity of Pay, Sick-pay and Pension.
Recommendation:
5. The Court takes the view that the employees here concerned
should be rewarded commensurate with the demands and
responsibilities of the work they are doing.
In this case the Court notes that the employer is prepared to
address seriously certain of the issues raised but is constrained
because of lack of resources.
The Court notes that the organisations concerned are in the main
resourced through grants. Given the manner in which the
organisations are established and resourced it is the view of the
Court that the parties should discuss the issues with the funding
authority and seek a basis which will enable them to have
meaningful dialogue on the issues raised.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Pierce Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95658 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15076
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CENTRES FOR THE UNEMPLOYED AT LIMERICK, DROGHEDA,
DUBLIN AND CLARE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Parity of Pay, Sick-pay and Pension.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of 4 Community
Enterprise Programme Supervisors (Co-ordinators) for
(i) pay parity with Community Workshop Managers
in FAS
(ii) the introduction of a pension scheme
(iii) improvements in the sick-pay scheme.
The Employer indicated that it was prepared to address the pay
issue, but that funding from FAS would have to be increased. It
claimed that financial constraints were also an impediment in
respect of the pension scheme and that improvements in the sick-pay
scheme could not be conceded in the context of 12-month employment
contracts.
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
20th of November, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on the 8th of January, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. PAY:
The specific claim is for pay parity with the FAS grade
of Community Workshop Manager. The basis of the claim is
that the duties of the co-ordinators are similar to those
of Community Workshop Managers in FAS and a fact that has
been accepted by the four Centres.
2. PENSION:
The co-ordinators have no pension rights at present.
Their claim, dated October 2, 1994, is for the
introduction of the pension benefits which apply to the
Community Workshop Managers in FAS, i.e., a contributory
scheme where a member's contribution rate is 5% (6.5%
inclusive of spouse and children), yielding an annual
benefit of 1/80th of final salary, with a maximum of
40/80ths, or half pay on retirement The validity of this
claim has been accepted by the four Centres.
3. SICK PAY SCHEME
The current annual paid sick-leave arrangements allow for
5 days' uncertified leave and 10 days' certified leave.
The claim, dated October 12th, 1994, is for the same
sick-leave scheme as applies to Community Workshop
Managers in FAS, i.e., 6 months at full pay, followed by
6 months at half pay, with Social Welfare benefits being
refunded to FAS. The validity of this claim is accepted
by the employers.
EMPLOYERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The sponsors of the Centres recognise the great
contribution the co-ordinators make to the operation of
the Resource Centres, and see merit in the claims made by
the Union, apart from the claim for improvements in the
sick-pay scheme. However, they have no option but to
reject the claims as they do not have the financial
resources to meet the cost of implementing these
improvements in pay and conditions of employment.
2. As a consequence of the Centres' almost exclusive
dependence on Government funding, the sponsors find
themselves as the employer, but not the 'paymasters'.
Wage grant rates for workers are set by the Government in
consultation with the Department of Enterprise and
Employment and FAS.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court takes the view that the employees here concerned
should be rewarded commensurate with the demands and
responsibilities of the work they are doing.
In this case the Court notes that the employer is prepared to
address seriously certain of the issues raised but is constrained
because of lack of resources.
The Court notes that the organisations concerned are in the main
resourced through grants. Given the manner in which the
organisations are established and resourced it is the view of the
Court that the parties should discuss the issues with the funding
authority and seek a basis which will enable them to have
meaningful dialogue on the issues raised.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
------------------
6th February, 1996 Deputy Chairman
M.K./U.S.
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR MICHAEL KEEGAN, COURT SECRETARY.