FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL LEARNING NETWORK (NATIONAL TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay increase
BACKGROUND:
2. The National Learning Network (formerly the National Training and Development Institute) provides training and career guidance to help people with disabilities gain employment. It is a non-profit organisation. Virtually all of the Network's funding comes from 2 sources - FAS (80%) and the Health Boards (20%). The funding is provided for on the basis of a fee-for-service, meaning the Network receives a fee for each trainee who receives training services. Most other similar organisations receive a block grant to cover costs.
The Union's claim is for a pay increase for all members with effect from March, 2003. This is to address the "drift" in the value of their pay rates. The Union first made a pay claim for parity with FAS (then AnCO) in the 1980s.
A comprehensive agreement was reached in May, 2001, involving a substantial increase in pay for all categories together with improvements in conditions of employment. The Union claims that management continued to resist the issue of pay parity and that it remains unresolved. It was agreed that there would be a joint forum to address the issue. In July, 2002, the agreed facilitator proposed as follows:
1. The review will commence in March, 2003, - both parties to make every reasonable effort to conclude the review as quickly as possible.
2 The pay and conditions of staff to be reviewed - without a fixed pay relationship with a basket of the following comparable employments: FAS, CTW, St. John of God, Brothers of Charity, COPE, Eve Holdings, CERT and the relevant Government Departments or agencies in the case of specialist roles not employed in those employments listed.
3 The review of any agreement reached to take account of the National Learning Network context including operational changes required of staff, available funding, projected activity and development plans. The review process to be overseen by an agreed third party if deemed necessary by both sides or otherwise through normal procedures.
Despite a number of meetings between the parties they could not reach agreement and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Again, agreement could not be reached and the dispute was then referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Throughout this dispute management has tried to frustrate the implementation of the agreed pay review mechanism.
- 2. Whilst the Union acknowledges that the Network has funding difficulties, if pay and condition levels are not protected it would mean the end of the pay review mechanism without it ever having been implemented.
3. The increases involved should be the same as those paid to the comparative organisations. As all of these have received increases under the Parallel Benchmarking process, the workers concerned should also receive these increases.
NETWORK'S ARGUMENTS:4. 1. The Network is fully reliant on the funding it receives from FAS and the Health Boards. This funding has drifted in a negative way for the past 4 years, with no funding at all in 2003. As a result, the Network has serious funding difficulties.
2. The Network believes that the only reason that pay 'drift' has occurred is as a direct result of Benchmarking being received by most if not all of the comparative organisations in the 'basket'. The Network has applied for additional monies from FAS and the Department of Health but was told that, as a private sector organisation, Benchmarking does not apply.
3. The cost of Benchmarking would be approximately €2 million. The Network has made strident efforts over the last 2 years to alleviate the financial difficulties created by the funding situation. If the Union's claim were conceded it would have a detrimental effect on the organisation.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court recommends, in all the circumstances, and there being a mechanism in place, that an increase of 8.7% be implemented with effect from the 1st of March, 2005.
It is the responsibility of the employer to obtain the necessary funding to implement the above increase.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st July, 2005______________________
CON/DHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.