FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WICKLOW COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Retrospection of payment under Towards 2016 (T16).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking retrospective payment of 3% from 1st December, 2006, and 2% from June, 2007, in relation to co-operating with the introduction of paypath. The Council's case is that on 18th February, 2008, it was confirmed by the Union that the 10 workers concerned had finally agreed, after numerous delays, to have their salaries paid by paypath. The Council authorised payment of the increases due under T16 from 1st December, 2006, and 1st June, 2007, but only to be applied from 18th February, 2008. The Union, however, is claiming that the increases should be paid from the due dates and is seeking the retrospection.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th September, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th December, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of the workers signing up to paypath was complicated by ongoing industrial relations problems within Bray Fire Station over a number of years. As a result, the issue of paypath was never properly addressed by the parties for a considerable period.
2. There is no reason why retrospective payments cannot be paid when people do agree to the use of paypath.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The withholding of payments from people who did not co-operate with paypath was authorised by the Secretary General of the Department of the Environment, Heritage, and Local Government.
2. The Council made it very clear to the workers on a number of occasions the consequence of not agreeing to paypath. When they finally agreed the Council authorised payment immediately.
RECOMMENDATION:
In previous cases the Court recommended payment, in whole or in part, of increases withheld under the Public Service Pay Agreements associated with Sustaining Progress or Towards 2016. However, it did so in circumstances where either the procedures prescribed by the Agreements were not adequately complied with in reaching the decision to withhold the payments or the employees concerned were not adequately advised as to the consequences of their failure to cooperate with the measures in dispute.
In this case there is no suggestion that the appropriate procedures were not followed before the decision to withhold the payments was taken. Moreover, it is accepted that the employees associated with this dispute were specifically told that their failure to sign up for paypath would result in payments of the increases in issue being withheld.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court cannot see any reasonable basis upon which it could recommend any modification of the decision taken by the Secretary General. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th January, 2009______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.