FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Application of correct payscale.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute involves a number of General Operatives (GOs) employed by UCD. The Union maintains that the rate of pay for GOs at UCD was set at 80% of the craft rate of pay as result of an Analogue Agreement in 1994. Due to National Agreements i.e. the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) in May, 1999, GOs are currently paid 77.58% of the craft rate of pay. The Union is seeking the application of the correct rate of pay with full retrospection from the time the rate diverged from the 80% figure.
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. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th January, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union entered an agreement with Management for 80% pay relationship with craft workers.
2. Management have accepted that GO's in this claim are in receipt of 77½% and not the 80% of the craft rate as of 1994.
3. The workers are out of pocket as a result of the miscalculation and should not have to continue bearing the brunt of this short fall in their pay.
4. The Union are requesting that the discrepancies be rectified with immediate effect with full retrospection of the under payment to both current and retired members.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Under the PCW Agreement GOs have been paid all increases due to them.
2. The GOs grades in UCD have been linked with corresponding grades in Health Boards, and Local Authorities outside Dublin.
3. The Union's claim is a breach of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
There are clear differences between the parties on the interpretation of the agreement.
The Union is firmly of the view that the claimants entered into an "agreement with their employer for an 80% pay relationship with craft workers".
Management are adamant that there was never such commitment and that the claimants are "linked with corresponding grades in the Health Boards and Local Authorities outside Dublin, in common with the vast majority of general operatives grades in the education sector".
It would appear that some of the confusion in relation to the perceived shortfall in salary for the claimants arises from the fact that the craftsmen in U.C.D. were paid above the normal rate.
While the Court accepts that the Union believes that it had an agreement for 80% of the craft worker rate, the Court notes that in the only area where this applies, Galway University, it was specifically agreed and written into the agreement.
Taking into account all of the information before it, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
11th May, 2004______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.