FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Circular as issued to be honoured.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members employed by the Department of Education as Early Starters and Special Needs Assistants for the implementation of a circular which issued in October, 2000. The Department states that the circular contained an error which resulted in an overpayment being made to the workers concerned. The Union argues that there was no error and the circular should be implemented as issued.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 17th of October, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of November, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of January, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When the circular issued in October, 2000, the Union sought clarification regarding the assimilation arrangements and each time an official of the Department confirmed the arrangements were correct as issued.
2. The workers concerned are disappointed and angered by the position adopted by the Department. Having received the increase and payment of arrears, it is unreasonable that the Department would now reduce their pay and recoup the arrears.
3. The fairest and most realistic approach to resolving the issue is to retain the assimilation framework put in place by the Department circular.
DEPARTMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In February, 2001, in the course of dealing with the implementation of the PCW agreement in respect of child care staff, the Department discovered an error in the circular which issued in October, 2000.
2. The Department has indicated that in the case of Special Needs Assistants, it must apply the removal of the age points but will allow mark time for all staff incorrectly moved up the scale. In the case of Early Start staff, it has agreed to a new scale to maintain their previous differential but would also apply mark time.
3. The offer is reasonable and should be accepted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the detailed written and oral submissions made by the parties.
The management position is that a circular issued in relation to the PCW agreement, in respect of childcare staff, contained an error that resulted in overpayment being made to 200 people.
The Union's position is that the circular should be implemented as issued, as it was not an error but the correct application.
It is clear that management was made aware on a number of occasions that there might be a problem with the circular but failed to act.
Management accepts this but argues that it is prepared to pay a penalty, hence its offer to the employees who have, in its view, been overpaid.
The Union, for its part, has strenuously argued that these employees have been correctly paid and that the circular should be applied to the remaining 1800 members of the group.
The Court, having considered all the arguments made, is not satisfied that sufficient evidence has been produced by the Union to justify its claim. The Court believes that the employer's offer to deal with this issue as outlined is reasonable in the circumstances and, therefore, does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
18th February, 2002______________________
G.B./C.C.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.