FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHILDREN'S MEDICAL & RESEARCH FOUNDATION (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay Scales.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 22 workers who are employed as clerical staff by the Children’s Medical Research Foundation, a fund-raising body of Our Lady’s Hospital, Crumlin. Following a Labour Court recommendation, LCR 16362, dated 25th November, 1999, the parties agreed an increase in the pay scales effective from 1st January, 2000. This was done to address the issue of low wage rates which existed at the time. The pay scales were agreed subject to a number of conditions. One such condition was that there would be no new claims other than National Wage Agreements for two years.
- The Union contends that this condition permits them to seek additional pay increases outside the National Wage Agreements once the two years had elapsed. The Union are seeking an alignment of the clerical pay rates with Civil Service Clerical Officer rates.
The employer rejects the Union’s interpretation of the previous agreement and argued that any increase outside National Wage Agreements is precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
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 9th December, 2004 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th April, 2005.
3.1 Following the Labour Court Recommendation LCR 16362, the Union sat down with Management and agreed a new pay scale on the clear understanding that the lifetime of the agreement was 2 years and that it would be revisited.
2 As to Management's view that this case is a 'cost increasing claim' and excluded under Sustaining Progress, the Union argues that when the original agreement was reached it was for the life of P2000 and that the Agreement was reached by management in full knowledge that any further negotiations would be over and above any National Agreements.
3. The Union did raise the issue with Management on a number of occasions and a meeting took place in early 2004, no agreement was reached. At this stage it was 2 years on from the end of the 2000 agreement.
4. The Union recognises the constraints of the Foundation, but argue that the workers rates are out of line with comparable rates within the public health sector.Other charities have conducted benchmarking processes in order to find average rates of pay.
5. The Foundation is an extremely successful fund-raising instrument and that is in part due to the dedication of the Staff.
FOUNDATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Management argued that the 2 year clause was inserted in the agreement to ensure that no claims of any kind would be brought within that period so as not to disrupt the workings of the organisation.
2. The claim is cost increasing under Sustaining Progress and thus debarred.
3. The Foundation is a charitable, non-profit making organisation.
4. The Foundation is not linked to the Health Service Executive, or the Department of Health nor to any other Government Agency or the Civil Service. There is no logical reason why public sector rates should be paid.
5. The Foundation provides a competitive salary and a contributory pension to its employees.
6. The Introduction of Public Sector or any type of long automatic incremental scales would be impossible to sustain, and cannot be afforded in the climate in which the Foundation works.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court is for the application of Public Sector pay rates to clerical staff in the Foundation.
Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court is of the view that, as the claim is for an increase in pay above the terms of Sustaining Progress II, it is cost increasing and is consequently debarred under the terms of Sustaining Progress II. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st April, 2005______________________
JB`Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.