FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TABOR LODGE LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Benchmarking
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court arises from the Union's claim to have the Benchmarking award of 10% with retrospection applied to the pay of Addiction Counsellors at the Company. The Union claim was based on the fact that the Addiction Counsellors pay was linked to the Basic Therapy Grades for the purposes of Benchmarking. It also sought to recognise that the Company had undertaken to pay its Addiction Counsellors in line with Addiction Counsellors working in the Health Boards and had included this provision in the contracts of employment for staff. The Company reject this claim, indicating they are a voluntary body, not a public service body and does not come within the scope of the Benchmarking System. Although some funding does come from the Health Service Executive, none of this is allocated to provide for the payment of Benchmarking.
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 could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th November, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th September, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company indicated that Addiction Counsellors would be paid at the same rate as their counterparts in the Health Service. This was done so in Letters of Offer and Contracts of Employment given to staff. This was re-stated in a staff memo in May 2003.
2 In a similar dispute, the Labour Court in LCR18168 supported the Union's contention that Addiction Counsellors should be paid the increases due under Benchmarking. The Court found similarly in LCR18133.
3 The Department of Finance issued a circular letter clarifying its position in relation to Benchmarking and the State funded voluntary sector. It is the Union's position that this circular clarifies in full the situation pertaining to the payment of Benchmarking to organisations such as the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Union is asking the Court to extend the Benchmarking award to a voluntary organisation operating outside the public sector. There is no provision for this in the National Agreement or in the Benchmarking system. The Company must be given the freedom to determine pay and conditions consistent with its economic and financial circumstances.
2 The Health Service Executive clarified in a letter to the Company that community/voluntary agencies who receive financial support do not have an entitlement to funding for the equivalent of Benchmarking Awards.
3 Unlike the public sector the Company does not receive 100% budgetary support. It has to operate terms and conditions that are possible within its overall income. This is variable from year to year. Having regard for the Company's present circumstances, it is unrealistic that the Union should expect or even argue for a specific pay relationship with the HSE using Benchmarking as the entry route.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of Addiction Counsellors for the application of Benchmarking increases to their rates of pay, with retrospection according to the terms of the Benchmarking Agreement. Management rejected the claim on the basis that it did not have sufficient funding to pay the increases sought.
Management informed the Court that the possibility of a Service Agreement was being explored between Tabor Lodge and HSE, which if successful could create the prospect of higher overall funding, enabling it to pay the increases sought.
The Court notes that the Addiction Counsellors’ offer of employment linked this grade for pay purposes with the similar grades in HSE (formerly Southern Health Board). Consequently, the Court is of the view that this commitment should be honoured and the alignment should be maintained. Therefore, the Court recommends in favour of the Union’s claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd October2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.