FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOCAL GOVERNMENT & HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD (& HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS' AGENCY) - AND - LOCAL AUTHORITY & HEALTH SERVICE UNIONS (REPRESENTED BY ICTU CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR17502.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 25th September, 2003. The following is the Court's Recommendation:-
RECOMMENDATION:
As proposed in LCR 17502 the parties entered into discussions on the change agenda required to achieve payment as outlined. However they failed to reach agreement.
Following meetings with the parties, the Court requested that they engage in further discussions, under the Chairmanship of Mr Brian McGinn. Subsequently agreement was reached, and a document agreed (attached) to cover the Modernisation/Change Agenda, Analogue Criteria, and Incremental Scales.
The Court had also in LCR 17502, recommended that the parties have further discussions on the Bonus Payment and Travel Time claims. The parties failed to reach an agreement on these items and requested the Court to make recommendations on both issues.
Bonus Payments:
The Court as previously stated is satisfied that the management discussed payment of an allowance in response to this claim, subject to certain conditions. Given this situation the Court finds it difficult to understand the employer’s stance that such a payment would be inappropriate.
The Court therefore recommends that a payment of £700 be paid, the basis of the payment to be as previously discussed and to be agreed between the parties.
Travel Time:
The Court aware of the letter of 10th February 2000 in relation to travel time requested that the parties enter into discussion, in the context of the letter. However the parties failed to reach any agreement on this matter.
While noting the content of the letter the Court is conscious of the different interpretations of the letter held by the parties. However, in considering this claim the Court must take into account the fact that this type of payment does not exist in the chosen Analogue Companies.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of this claim.
The Court was also requested to outline the criteria used when deciding the rates of pay of the disputed companies.
The Court in deciding these specific rates considered the merits of the arguments made by each of the parties and then recommended the appropriate rate. The Court in doing so did not interfere with the criteria agreed by the parties, but merely dealt with disagreements arising on interpretation of the criteria.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
6th October, 2003______________________
LW/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.