FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSEUM OF MODERN ART (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Review Of Pay Rates
BACKGROUND:
2. The Irish Museum of Modern Art was established in 1991 by the Government as a national cultural institution. It is housed in the former Royal Hospital, Kilmainham and employs approximately 64 people.
The dispute concerns the Union's claim for an increase in pay on behalf of 33 mediators employed in the Museum. Mediators supervise exhibitors, interact with the public and provide formal and informal tours in the Museum's programme. Other duties include visitor information, security and assisting in the setting up of exhibitions.
The Union claims that the workers' rates of pay do not reflect their artistic/technical skills, and their academic qualifications. Their current rates of pay ranges from £11,223 to £14,331.
Management's position is that the claim for a pay review represents a cost increasing claim and, therefore, it is outside previous and existing national pay agreements and until the Union accepts this the Museum is unable to discuss any other possibilities, such as its proposal for a structural review on which it has already put forward proposals to the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and the Department of Finance.
The matter was the subject of two conciliation conferences held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd of June, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th of August, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The mediators are direct employees of the Irish Museum of Modern Art. They are not public service workers and have no pay relationship with any group in this sector. However, their rates of pay were originally set in line with those of the attendant grade in the National Museum. The work of the mediator is of greater value to that of the attendant grade.
2. Since the Museum was established in 1991, most of the people employed as mediators have held third level qualification in the Arts. Their rates of pay were established without reference to or comparison with a comparable group of professional workers. A reasonable comparison would be with that of art teacher at Primary and Secondary school level.
3. The Union is seeking a substantial increase in pay which would reflect the mediators' qualifications. It is mutually accepted by Management and the Union that their rates of pay do not reflect the role and qualifications of the mediators.
4. The Union has proposed that the matter should be processed through an independent pay review body, chaired by a nominee of the Labour Relations Commission, and with its terms of reference to include all pay related issues including pension.
5. The current pay rates do not reflect academic qualifications. The Union is asking the Court to recommend a pay review body as proposed as the appropriate way forward and an interim increase in the current pay scales.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union and its members opted for a ballot on the 9th and 10th of March on industrial action before any local negotiations took place except for one meeting on the 4th of February, 2000, at which a demand for a full pay review was made at the same time as a previous demand for an analogue payment was dropped.
Management believes that this process undermines the spirit and intent of existing dispute resolution procedures agreed between Management and the Union.
2. In balloting for industrial action, the Union took no account of the fact that the Museum cannot act unilaterally in such matters but must seek sanction from its sponsoring department and through the Department of Finance. This is recognised by the Union in section 20 of the procedural agreement between SIPTU and Management.
3. The Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaelacht and the Islands has stated that a pay review of mediators/technical grade was part of the PCW process in which the mediators and technical crew staff moved from a fixed non-incremental point on to an eleven point scale with technical crew members starting at a higher point as agreed on that scale. The Union's demands and expectations were met in the PCW round and the Union agreed in full and final settlement in early 1998. It will not be possible to renegotiate this pay review without provoking demands from other staff of the Museum.
4. The Union's threat of industrial action had already irrevocably compromised the opening of the Museum's new galleries causing the Museum serious financial, planning and logistical difficulties. The Museum would strongly reject any suggestion by the Union's of any refusal to engage on its part, at a stage when the Museum had already committed to a process.
5. The Museum has operated within national agreements at all times and has applied them in respect of the Mediators' posts which are entry level grades with qualifications acceptable at the minimum which should be compared to other entry level posts within the public service.
6. The claim for a pay review represents a cost-increasing claim and, therefore, is outside the previous and existing partnership agreements. Until the union accepts this the Museum is unable to discuss any other possibilities such as the Museum's proposal for a structural review. To this end, the Museum has already put forward proposals to the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Arts and Department of Finance.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the course of the hearing the employer representative indicated that the Union's claim for a pay review could be accommodated within the Benchmarking process provided for by Framework 1 of Annex 11 of The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. This proposal has not previously been put to the Union or considered by them.
The Court recommends that the parties should jointly explore this proposal as a mechanism for addressing the current claim. This should not preclude the Museum from undertaking a structural review of the type which it has already proposed.
Should it transpire that the Benchmarking process is not available in the present case, the dispute may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
18 August, 2000______________________
FB/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.