FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR IRELAND - AND - CLUCKALIHA SERVICES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay, Pension & Tenure
BACKGROUND:
2. Between 1988 and 2005 the workers concerned were employed on a series of successive, fixed - term contracts. Following a determination from the Revenue Commissioners in February 2006, which was accepted by both parties, the workers status was changed from self - employed to employees commencing as of the 1st January, 2006. The Claimants are seeking the adjustment of salaries on the basis of what applies in the wider public service with appropriate retrospection. They are also seeking the establishment of a pension scheme for each employee with full service recognition and the security of tenure conditions as it applies in the public service.
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 31st July, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th September, 2007.
CLAIMANTS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Claimants are seeking to have each employee placed on a salary scale based on a review that was carried out on their behalf. Full retrospection should be applied from the date of first appointment in each case.
2 The Board of the employer should set up a pension scheme with immediate effect providing for full service recognition in each case. It should be comparable to that of the wider public service at the time of appointment.
3 There should be a principle of no worsening of existing conditions in the new contracts of employment and security of tenure conditions equal to those applied in the wider public service at the time of recruitment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The salary offered to each employee is in line with applicable fee under which they were engaged prior to the determination of the Revenue Commissioners as to employment status. The employer is not a public service. The use of certain civil service grades as appropriate comparators is not acceptable.
2 The employer offered access to a PRSA. It has offered to make an annual PRSA contribution of 10% of gross salary per employee plus an initial lump sum contribution.
3 The employees have all the security of tenure afforded to them by legislation. The employer never conceived that it would enter into employment relationships with third parties and is reliant on donor contributions for its continued existence. It cannot guarantee its continued existence beyond 2010.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties in this case and recommends as follows:-
Pay
Having regard to the information before it the Court is not satisfied that a sustainable case has been made for aligning the pay of the claimants with that of the public sector grades. Nor does the Court believe that the claim for a review of current rates by reference to historic movement in public service pay is reasonable.
The Court notes that the employer has made an offer to adjust current pay rates. The Court recommends that this offer be modified as follows:-
All salaries should be increased by 6% with effect from 1st January, 2007. This increase should be inclusive of the first phase increase provided for by the private sector pay agreement associated with Towards 2016. The Second phase of the Agreement should apply from 1st June, 2007. Thereafter pay should be increased in line with national agreements.
Pensions
The Court recommends that the employer increase its offer of a PRSA contribution to 12.5%, plus an initial lump sum contribution of 1+2 years in Year 1.
Tenure
The Court does not recommend concession of the employees' claim for security of tenure as it applies in the public service.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd October, 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.