FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUI GALWAY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - LOCAL AUTHORITY & HEALTH SERVICES CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for payment in full of increases due under the Craftworkers' Parallel Benchmarking / Analogue Agreement 2003 and Sustaining Progress (SP) from the due dates.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions are seeking the following retrospective payments on behalf of 13 Craftworkers which they claim are due under SP;
3% from 1st January, 2004
2% from 1st July, 2004
2% from 1st December, 2004
1.5% from 1st June, 2005
and Parallel Benchmarking Body:-
50% of the increase recommended by the Public Service Benchmarking Body from 1st January, 2004 and 25% from 1st June, 2005.
In February, 2004, a Modernisation and Change Agenda (the Agenda) for the Craftworkers in the University was agreed. An Action Plan to implement the Agenda was to be assessed by the Education Sector Performance Verification Group (ESPVG) The University claims that the non-payment of the arrears was as a result of a 16-month delay by the Unions in agreeing the Action Plan. The Action Plan was finally agreed on 21st June, 2005. The Unions' case is that the Craftworkers had at all times been in compliance with any requirements made of them.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commissions and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th September, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th December, 2008.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All Unions co-operated fully from the outset in order to agree an Action Plan. At no time did they engage in official or unofficial action in pursuance of the payments due from 1st January, 2004.
2. Even after the deadline for the agreement had passed both sides continued to negotiate with a view to reaching an agreement. By implication it was agreed to extend the agreement.
3. Various other PVGs have sanctioned full payments in a number of local authorities, health boards and private hospitals without any action plan being required.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was clearly outlined to the Unions on a number of occasions the consequences of failing to agree an Action Plan, including a letter of 14th July, 2004,which stated"if we fail to meet these deadlines staff may lose out on Benchmarking and Sustaining Progress payments."Further discussions, meetings and phone calls took place before agreement was reached in June, 2005.
2. By declining to agree an Action Plan until June, 2005, the Craftworkers were in breach of SP. This position has been supported by both the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science and the ESPVG in their respective roles under SP agreements.
3. Under SP payment could only be made on the basis of verifiable co-operation with flexibility and ongoing change. This did not take place until October, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Unions submitted a claim before the Court for the payment in full of the amounts due under Sustaining Progress and under the Craft Parallel Benchmarking Agreement. These payments were refused due to the delay of sixteen months in agreeing an acceptable Action Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Education Sector Performance Verification Group (ESPVG). The purpose of the Action Plan was to provide for the implementation of the Modernisation and Change Agenda for Craftworkers already agreed under the Craftworkers' Analogue Agreement.
The Action Plan was finally deemed acceptable on 21st June, 2005.
The original due dates of the payments and the increases giving rise to the claim for retrospection are as follows:
•3% from 1st January 2004 plus 50% of the Parallel Benchmarking award
•2% from 1st July 2004
•2% from 1st December 2004, and
•1.5% from 1st June 2005 plus 25% of the Parallel Benchmarking award
Having carefully considered both the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court notes that the University/Unions were not informed of the necessity to submit an Action Plan until March 2004 and no projected date for completion was provided. However, the Court also notes that the Unions were given a warning as early as July, 2004, of the necessity of submitting the Action Plan and the likely consequences for the failure to do so. Therefore, the Court is of the view that an appropriate sanction is warranted for the delay and accordingly recommends that 60% of the retrospection due should be paid.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
18th December, 2008______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.