FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : INSTITUTES OF TECHNOLOGY (REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE) - AND - TEACHERS UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. The payment of the 3% pay increase due under Towards 2018 from 1st December, 2006 was withheld from members of the Teachers' Union of Ireland until 7th March, 2007 as the Union did not sign up to the Action Plan for the educational sector until that date. The Secretary General had advised the Performance Verification Group (PVG) not to back-date the increase to December, 2006. The TUI had expected that the increase would be made retrospective to 1st December, 2006 and they now feel that they are being unfairly treated as a result.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th March, 2008 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th May, 2008
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepted T2016 immediately following its endorsement by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, there was no industrial action that could have obstructed progress and implementation of the plan.
2. The ballot on the Action Plan did take some time but the delay made no material difference to the agenda for modernisation and change and therefore should not attract any sanctions.
3. The withholding of the 3% pay increase could be considered as a breach of the agreement as the Union contends that all aspects of T16 have been adhered to, and the pay increase should now be implemented and paid retrospectively to 1st December 2006.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As soon as the TUI signed up to the agreement the Secretary General recommended to the PVG that the increase of 3% be paid. In his view there is no basis to the claim for retrospection.
2. The delay in accepting the Action Plan had general knock-on effects including the commitment to revise arrangements on the Apprenticeship year by the deadline of the end of January, 2007 as agreed.
3. If the claim were to be conceded, it would raise the question as to why any group should agree and implement the terms of an agreement on time if agreement and implementation can be delayed and still the Workers concerned get paid.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court was to restore the 3% pay increase due under the first round of pay increases under the National Agreement Towards 2016 previously refused by the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science for the Union’s Members in the Institutes of Technology.
This increase had been due for payment on 1st December 2006 but was withheld pending the Union deciding on the acceptability of the Action Plan applicable under Towards 2016 and was restored following the Union’s endorsement of the Plan after the announcement of the result of a ballot of the Union’s Members in favour of the Plan on 8th March 2007, with effect from that date.
Towards 2016 had been ratified by the ICTU (including the TUI) on 5th September 2006. Under the National Agreement the Education Sector Performance Verification Group (ESPVG) was required to assess progress on the modernisation agenda and have an agreed Action Plan for each sector in place by 1st November 2006.
An agreed Action Plan was submitted by the National Partnership Forum for the Institutes of Technology on 5th December 2006 which had been formally accepted by all Unions other than the TUI.
The National Partnership Forum reported that the TUI had not yet accepted the Action Plan for the Institutes of Technology and at a meeting between the Department of Education and Science, the Institutes of Technology and the TUI on 7th December 2006 the implications of the delay in agreeing the Action Plan and meeting the commitments regarding it in Towards 2016 for payment of the first round increase on the due date of 1st December 2006 were raised.
On 15th December 2006 the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science reported to the ESPVG that payment of the first round increase on the due date was warranted for all grades in the Institutes of Technology sectors which had agreed the Action Plan except the TUI which had not. This was confirmed by the ESPVG at its meeting on 19th December 2006.
The Action Plan was subsequently agreed by the Union following a ballot of its members on 6th March 2007 and communicated to the Institutes and the Department two days later. The Secretary General of the Department then wrote to ESPVG confirming payment of the first round increase to TUI members in the Institutes with effect from the 8th March 2007.
The Department argued that the delay in accepting the Action Plan by the Union resulted in a lack of progress on the implementation of agreed commitments particularly with regard to revision of the apprenticeship year while the delay in agreeing the Action Plan was a breach of the National Agreement.
The Union argued that its Members in the Institutes had concerns about the Action Plan but that the delay in agreeing it did not materially affect progress towards implementing the commitments as events turned out.
Having carefully considered both the written and oral submissions of the parties, the Court is satisfied that while the impact of the delay in the Union agreeing the Action Plan is disputed, the delay is a breach of the National Agreement and created uncertainty so that an appropriate sanction is warranted and the Court accordingly recommends that the effective date for payment of the first increase under Towards 2016 for TUI Members in the Institutes of Technology be brought back to 9th February 2007, when balloting on the Action Plan commenced, and which revised effective date for the increase, the Court considers to be reasonable in all the circumstances.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th June, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.