FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The Law Society of Ireland is a Chartered Body with statutory powers which regulates and controls the solicitors' profession. The Union's claim is for a pay increase on behalf of all the administrative staff who serve the internal administrative and processing needs of the Society. The Union claims that the Society has undergone significant expansion in recent years which warrants a pay increase of 10% on all points of the salary scale for the workers concerned. (The Union supplied details of comparators to show how the workers' rates of pay had fallen between 1998 and 2005). The Society has rejected the claim which it states is in breach of Towards 2016.
The claim was first made in September, 2005, and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences at the Labour Relations Commissions (LRC). As the parties could not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd of March, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th of June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Society has rapidly expanded in terms of the number of practising solicitors and there has been a 100% growth in the educational services it provides. This has resulted in a considerable increase in the duties of the workers concerned, something that was recognised by the President of the Society .
2. The workers' pay scale should be adjusted and should make provision for a long-service increment which is common in both the public and private sectors.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society has always been fully compliant with the terms of the National Pay Agreements, including Towards 2016 which the present claim is clearly in breach of .
2. The Union has presented no valid arguments as to why the Society should pay beyond the terms of Towards 2016. The alleged comparators are vague and provide no substantial basis for the claim.
3.. The Society's staff resources have increased consistently over the years in response to increasing demands of practising and student solicitors. In broad terms resources have increased by 75% in the past eight years.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully the oral and written submissions of the parties in this case.
In resisting the Union’s claim Management submitted that it is cost increasing and, therefore, precluded by Clause 1.4 of the pay agreement associated with “Towards 2016”.
The Court is satisfied that the Society’s pay scales have been adjusted by the application of the pay agreements associated with the various National Wage Agreements. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the Union’s claim is cost increasing and is, therefore, debarred by the terms of “Towards 2016”.
Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th July, 2007______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.