FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COOLMINE SPORTS COMPLEX (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Confirmation of linkage to VEC Grade 3 scale and payment of Benchmarking payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of workers employed as caretakers, leisure attendants, and administrative staff that the public service elements of Sustaining Progress and the Benchmarking payments, as they apply in the Public Service, should be applied to the claimants. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd November, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 26th January, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claimants are linked for salary purposes since 1991 to the Grade 3 salary scale applicable to the CDVECs. This method of pay determination has applied to all national public service pay agreements since 1991. The pay rates applicable in the Sports Complex on the 1st October, 2001, were exactly the same as those that applied for comparable staff in the CDVECs. October, 2001 was the date for payment of the final phase of the National Wage agreement under the PPF. This phase was paid to staff on the same date as it applied in the Education Sector and was also the last pay increase for staff until September, 2005 when staff received a 3% pay increase, without prejudice to the outcome of the Union's claim or Management's position..
2 . Established pay linkages have to be maintained. The issues surrounding the employer's ability to pay could be dealt with once the original claim has been resolved . The Union is prepared to enter discussions with the employer in that regard.
3. The Complex is deficit funded jointly by the Department of Education and Science and the Local Authority. Therefore, the impact of pay increases associated with this claim contributing to a loss making situation for the Sports Complex should not arise. The staff of the Sports Complex since 1986, including new staff are comprehended by the Department's Contributory Pension Scheme.
4. The members of staff in the Sports Complex are also willing to sign up to the Co-operation, Flexibility, Modernisation and Change proposals agreed in the Education Sector if the claim is conceded.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the point when the Sports Complex originated, no competitors in the local area existed. Management, therefore, had no industry comparative for pay rates for workers at the time. In order to give workers a fair and reasonable salary, Management identified the VEC Grade 3 scale as the appropriate point of reference for setting initial rates of remuneration for a number of the claimants. Management rejects the claim that there is any linkage to the VEC Grade 3 scale. There is no comparison between the work performed by the claimants and staff in the VEC and accordingly, no linkage between the pay rates in the Sports Complex and those in the Public Sector. The staff are employees of the Sports Complex. The VEC does not pay the claimants salaries and has no function in that regard.
2. The Sports Complex is self financing. It generates its own income through membership fees, public charge for the use of facilities and income from the school for access to the facilities. It does not receive direct funding towards the operation, staffing and programme costs from the Department of Education and Science, the Local Authority or any other government agency. There is no rationale as to why the Sports Complex should be linked to public sector pay rates.
3. The Sports Complex is placed in a highly competitive marketplace and is not in a position to increase membership fees due to this and is already in a situation where it is servicing debt.
4. The Sports Complex's pay rates are competitive within the industry. It should not be burdened by having to introduce uncompetitive and unsustainable pay rates. The Sports Complex is currently operating in a deficit and is not funded.There is no deficit funding available. Measures have already been taken to reduce costs. In view of its financial difficulties, concession of the claim would call into question the future viability of the Sports Complex.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court on the information provided that the pay of those associated with this claim have been determined, at least since 1991, by the application of the Public Sector Pay Agreements associated to successive National Agreements. In that regard it is accepted that previous grade or "special" increases provided by previous Public Sector Agreements have been applied to the claimants.
Against that background the Court does not see any basis in principle upon which established custom and practice should not apply in respect of the increase claimed, which arises from the Public Sector Agreement associated with Sustaining Progress. Accordingly the Court is satisfied that the Union's claim is well founded and should be conceded.
The Court notes the Union's willingness to discuss any financial implications arising from concession of its claim with the employer. The Court recommends that such discussions should take place on acceptance of this Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd February, 2006______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.