FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : MILFORD CARE CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1.
Appeal of Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR6724/01/MR.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker commenced employment with the Centre in June, 1996, in the position of Household Supervisor. Her salary at the time was the equivalent of €17,522. With the application of the National Wage Agreement her salary now is €23,380. Under the terms of her contract, it was agreed that the worker's salary "could be negotiated from time to time as per household agreements". Since 1997, the Union has pursued a claim for pay parity with Health Board rates on behalf of its members employed as catering assistants, care attendants, porters and maintenance staff. The claim was achieved in November, 2000. The increase would have incorporated the Analogue Agreements' pay awards applicable to the Health Sector.
The Union's claim is that the worker did not receive any of the increases that were awarded to her colleagues in the Centre. It is now seeking the application of the 1997 and 2000 Analogue Pay Increases to her pay scale. The Centre believes that the most comparable position in the Health Board Structure is that of Domestic Supervisor, Grade VI.
The case was referred to a Rights Commissioner whose recommendation was as follows:-
"In the circumstances, I recommend that the Union's claim fails".
The Union appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 25th of October, 2002, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of March, 2003, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is unfair that the worker has been denied the same access to special pay awards as has been granted to her colleagues in the Centre.
2. Without access to the Analogue Agreements, her colleagues' (including those she supervises) rates of pay will eventually surpass the worker's own.
3. Under her contract terms, the worker is entitled to negotiate pay increases in line with in-house agreements. The Rights Commissioner did not give sufficient consideration to this aspect of her contract.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is prohibited under Clause 11 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
CENTRE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The worker's salary is not linked with the Public Sector scales. It was agreed with her on an individual basis when she commenced employment. Therefore, the Analogue Agreements do not apply to her.
2. The Rights Commissioner found that the worker is appropriately remunerated for her current duties.
3. All increases due under the National Wage Agreement have been applied in full to the worker. Her weekly pay has increased from €337 gross in 1996 to €449 in 2002, which represents a significant increase.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is prohibited under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
DECISION:
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, upholds the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation and rejects the appeal.
However, the Court recommends that the appellant be given the opportunity of having her post linked to that of Domestic Supervisor Grade VI if she so desires.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th March, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.