FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRINITY COLLEGE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for restoration of differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the restoration of a differential involving four staff arising out of Labour Court Recommendation 16684(LCR 16684) which issued in November, 2000. The issue in dispute was one of a number before the Court and had also been investigated by the Labour Relations Commission and a third party. In LCR 16684 the Court recommended that the four workers should receive a Special Responsibility allowance of £745 (now worth approximately €1,400) per annum. In March, 2004, the College confirmed to the Union that it had awarded the allowance to three other individuals following a claim by the Library Staff Association (LSA). The Union is seeking that the differential between the two groups of workers should be restored.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of October, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of February, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The College conceded the LSA's claim without the three workers being subjected to any identification of their duties as happened with the original four claimants.
2. Following an issue arising in relation to one of the four posts it was clarified by the LRC that"the special responsibility allowance provided for under LCR 16684 will not apply to any further holders of the post and will cease as individuals leave these posts."
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The situation of the three workers was so similar to the cases of the four SIPTU staff as to justify payment of the same allowance to them. SIPTU's case was not made relative to the three LSA staff.
2.The Union is effectively looking to double the allowance for the four claimants. Concession of the Union's claim would have serious repercussive effects in the College.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court sees no merit in the Union's claim and does not recommend that it be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
16th February, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.