FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : GOETHE INSTITUTE (REPRESENTED BY WATERS & ASSOCIATES) - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Non - Payment of pay increases due under Sustaining Progress
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the non payment of pay increases due under Sustaining Progress to employees of the Goethe Institute, Dublin. The Institute is a cultural institution of the Federal Republic of Germany and is involved in the teaching of the German language as
well as providing information on German culture, society and politics.
The parties are in dispute in relation to the non payment of increases due under Sustaining Progress. The dispute was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in June 2006. At that time the case was adjourned to allow local level negotiations on outstanding issues. Management subsequently made an offer which proved unacceptable to the workers on the basis of conditions attached to the payment of the increases.
The Union is seeking that the increases due be paid to workers who were in the employment on 1st July, 2003 and an adherance by the Institute to future national wage agreements and that any future Benchmarking exercises within the organisation would be agreed between the Employer and the Union.
Management reject the claim on the basis that national wage agreements are voluntary and the Institute cannot implement increases without approval from its funder in Germany, which they have been unable to do.
As the dispute was not resolved at local level, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th October 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Institute has not applied the increases due under Sustaining Progress on the basis that it has been unable to get approval from its headquarters in Germany for the payment of the increases and that it cannot sustain the additional costs of the increases, yet it has not claimed inability to pay as is provided for in Sustaining Progress.
2. It is unacceptable that basic cost of living increases are being witheld from the workers on the basis that the Institute is not bound by National Wage Agreements and are not obliged to apply the increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Institute operates under financial constraints and receives its annual funding from the German Foreign Ministry. It must seek approval prior to implementing wage increases.
2. National Wage Agreements are not binding on employers. and while the Institute may have applied increases negotiated at national level in the past, it is currently unable to sustain the additional costs of paying the increases.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that following the previous hearing of this dispute before the Court the parties engaged in negotiations and a substantial measure of agreement was reached. However the parties could not resolve a number of issues raised in the Union’s claim and this prevented final resolution of the dispute. The Court recommends that the monetary offer made by the Institute and set out in its memorandum to Staff Representatives dated 28th June 2006 be accepted on the following conditions:-
Staff who have left the Employment.
Staff who worked for the Institute in the period covered by the offer but have since left should receive the increase offered in respect of the period of their employment.
Future Increases
The Court accepts that the Institute cannot give an immutable or unqualified undertaking to abide by the terms of national wage agreements for all time. However, the Union and the Institute should adopt the pay agreement associated with the recently concluded National Partnership Agreement for the duration of that agreement. With regard to future pay determination (following the expiry of the current agreement), in the absence of any other agreed arrangements the parties should have full regard to national norms in this jurisdiction including those negotiated and agreed by Employer and Trade Union bodies at national level.
Benchmarking.
SIPTU should be facilitated in representing its members interests in any future benchmarking exercise undertaken within the Institute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st November 2006______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.