FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TALLAGHT COMMUNITY WORKSHOP LIMITED - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Salary increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Tallaght Community Workshop Ltd. is one of a number of special training workshops for unemployed people located around the country. Pay and conditions of staff employed in the workshops are determined and funded by FAS. The Union's claim is that the worker be placed on the higher scale of pay as set out in an Agreement of June, 1997, (details of the Agreement were supplied to the Court).
In 1989, Labour Court Recommendation No. 12565 was issued. In it, the Court recommended that the salaries of staff in community workshops should be brought in line with comparable FAS grades, grades 11 and 14 being regarded as the appropriate comparable grades. The Union claims that no significant increase in pay rates for clerical staff took place, despite discussions between FAS and ICTU. Further discussions took place in 1996/97 which resulted in the June, 1997, Agreement. Point 3 of the Agreement refers to clerical grades and states "clerical grades may be assimilated on the following scale £8,676 - £12,986. In exceptional circumstances, cases can be considered for the scale £8,856 - £15,875". It was agreed that where a claim for application of the higher scale arose, it would be processed in the first instance at local level and then through the management committee to FAS.
In September, 1997, the manager of the Tallaght workshop sought to have the higher scale applied to the worker concerned. FAS refused to sanction the application. The issue was referred to the Labour Relations Commission but, as no progress was made, it was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of December, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1), of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of February, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The duties and responsibilities carried out by the worker are clearly comparable to those carried out at grade 11 in FAS (the worker's job description was supplied to the Court). She carries out the key clerical/administration function within the Workshop.
2. FAS has refused to deal with the Union. It also failed to carry out any review of the case, contrary to the June, 1997, Agreement.
WORKSHOP'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Workshop depends solely on FAS for funding. FAS will not supply the necessary funding to pay the higher rate the worker is seeking, therefore the Workshop cannot pay it.
RECOMMENDATION:
In view of the agreement between the parties as to the merit of the work performed by the claimant, the Court recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
6th March, 1998______________________
C.O'N./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.