FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ADAPT KERRY LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Remuneration, sick-pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Adapt Kerry Ltd and SIPTU in relation to (1) the application of the appropriate HSE pay rates and (2) the implementation of the relevant HSE sick pay scheme for 6 support workers employed by the Company.
The Union's position is that the claim as presented is fair and reasonable on the basis of the work carried out by the members and the rates payable to comparable employees in similar employment. Management's position is that there is merit in the Union's claim but that there are funding constraints that prohibit its concession.
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 14th June, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd April, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Social Care Workers employed by the Company are being paid at a rate of pay that does not reflect their responsibilities or length of service. This is unacceptable as comparable workers employed by the Health Service Executive are in receipt of more favourable terms and conditionsof employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management accept that there is merit in the Union's claim for pay parity with HSE grades and for the implementation of the appropriate sick pay scheme. It has, however, been unable to obtain funding to meet the additional costs of the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions in this case. It is satisfied that the Claimants through their Employer provides an important public service to vulnerable members of society. The Court can see no viable argument as to why they should not receive pay and conditions of employment in line with analogous grades in the public service.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the Union’s claim be conceded. The Court further recommends that the parties cooperate in seeking funding from the appropriate agency to allow this recommendation to be implemented.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th April, 2007______________________
AH/MC.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.