FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FAILTE EIREANN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION NATIONAL UNION OF JOURNALISTS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Grading of Workers at Grade E
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Fáilte Eireannn and SIPTU/NUJ in relation to regrading. The Union is claiming that former B�rd Fáilte grades were re-aligned to Civil Service gradings by agreement in 2001.
In the case of the workers in this case, it is claimed that the grades remained the same with an additional two long service increments whereas the appropriate alignment was to the Assistant Principal Higher Scale. Management's position is that agreement was reached in 2001 and again in 2003 through negotiations at the Labour Relations Commission. Management claim that there is no ambiguity in relation to agreements reached and the alignment to Assistant Principal (Higher) is both inapropriate and at variance with previous agreements.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 13th October 2006. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29th February 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The agreements concluded previously did not resolve this issue. It became clear after the 2001 agreement that this issue remained in dispute for discussion at the Labour Relation Commission (LRC). The harmonisation proposals which issued in 2003 outlined this issue as unresolved and the Union again attempted unsuccessfully to address the outstanding issues with management.
2 It is unacceptable that these workers be treated less favourably than other comparable employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 This claim has been dealt with through the agreement concluded in 2001. An offer was accepted by the Union at the time.
2 The claim is cost increasing and at variance with previous agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear from the documents before the Court that an offer was made by the employer by letter dated 12th June 2001. The letter enclosed the proposed payscales, including the proposed scale for Grade E.
The offer was subsequently accepted by the Union. Consequently a valid agreement came into being between the parties.
In the circumstances of the case the Court cannot see any basis upon which it could recommend that this agreement be re-opened at this time.
The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th April 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.