FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NORTH WESTERN HEALTH BOARD MIDLAND HEALTH BOARD (REPRESENTED BY THE HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS' AGENCY) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Restoration of relativity with instructors in FÁS.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of Workshop Instructors employed by the North Western Health Board (NWHB) and Midland Health Board (MHB) seeking restoration of relativity with instructors employed by FÁS. The claim is in respect of 33 instructors.
The Union states that Labour Court Recommendation LCR11592 recommended parity for instructors employed by the Health Boards with instructors employed by FÁS. This parity agreement combined elements of the FÁS 9 and 10 Scales.
In 1996, FÁS concluded a deal under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) which improved the rate of pay of instructors and gave them access to a higher Grade 8 Scale. Management offered to maintain the parity which existed for the 9 and 10 Scales but has not offered the instructors in the North Western Health Board and Midland Health Board access to the higher Grade 8 Scale.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 7th of September, 1998 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th of November, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The parity will only apply on a red-circled basis to the remaining 33 instructors employed by the North Western Health Board and the Midland Health Board.
2. The cost of conceding the claim is small. There will be no knock-on effects.
3. Instructors employed in the North Western Health Board and the Midland Health Board have had parity with FÁS instructors since 1987 following Labour Court Recommendation LCR11592.
4. The instructors concerned have co-operated on all matters concerning flexibility and remain committed to ongoing flexibility.
5. In a majority of cases in the Public Service all pre-existing pay relationships have been restored during the course of the PCW negotiations.
EMPLOYERS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Management is prepared to maintain the parity between instructors employed by FÁS and the North Western Health Board and the Midland Health Board which existed prior to the deal concluded by FÁS under the PCW.
2. The level of increase being sought is in excess of 20% which is unjustified and unsustainable.
3. Midland Health Board have had to close its Training Centre in Mullingar because of a significant reduction in the numbers using the Centre.
4. Concession of the claim would have serious adverse implications for the Health Boards providing training services.
5. Management has approached this claim in a positive and constructive manner. It accepted the relativity established by Labour Court Recommendation LCR11592 in 1987.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for the application to the claimant group of increases in pay conceded toFÁSinstructors as part of a restructuring agreement concluded under Clause 2 iii (a) of Annex 2 of the Pay Agreement associated with PCW. The terms of that agreement are such that increases provided on the basis of restructuring cannot be automatically claimed by other groups on the sole basis of previously established pay relationships. If the present claim were based only on the previously established relativity with correspondingFÁSgrade it would not, in the Court's view, be sustainable having regard to the intent of the restructuring clause of PCW.
In this case, however, both Health Boards agreed, during the currency of PCW, to re-affirm the previously established pay parity between both groups. That commitment was given in May, 1995, in the case of theNorth Western Health Board and December, 1995 in the case of theMidland Health Board, in the context of agreement on flexibility necessary to meet changing requirements in the service provided by the claimant grade.
At the time the commitment was given, both employers knew thatFÁS were engaged in negotiations on a restructuring agreement which would involve improvements in pay. Yet the agreement concluded did not limit or qualify in any way the commitment to maintain pay parity, on a personal basis, withFÁS instructors in the future. In the Court's view this could only be interpreted to mean that whatever pay adjustments emerged from the negotiations betweenFÁS and the unions representing its staff, would be applied to those in respect of whom the commitment was given.
On that basis and having regard to the particular circumstances of this case the Court considers that the Union's claim is well founded and recommends that it be conceded on the basis that the Heath Boards are entitled to productivity/flexibility concessions from the claimant grade of equal value to those conceded toFÁS.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd November, 1998______________________
L.W./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.