FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HSE - ST COLEMAN'S HOSPITAL, RATHDRUM (REPRESENTED BY HSE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Retrospective pay following Re-Grading
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between St Colemans Hospital Rathdrum and SIPTU in relation to the retrospective payment dates following an upgrade of Domestic staff from Band 4 to Band 3. The Union's position is that the upgrading should be applied from 1st March, 2007 on the basis of agreement reached between the parties. Management's position is that a lack of funding prevents them from retrospectively applying the wage increases to the dates sought by the Union.
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 21st October 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th January, 2009 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The different grades of staff; Domestic Attendants and Attendants were incorrectly regraded which resulted in one group receiving a higher rate of pay, despite an agreement on re-banding and retrospection. It is unacceptable that the workers be penalised as a result of an administraive error on Management's part.
2 The workers are interchangeable in the roles and have provided the required flexibility since the re-banding occurred in 2005. In an attempt at resolution, the workers have agreed to accept the retrospective payment of wage increases from 1st March, 2007.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Concession of the claim would lead to repercussive claims on the basis of the breach of the Agreement concluded between the parties. In addition, management cannot sustain the costs of the Union's claim as it does not have the additional funding for the payments.
2 The Union's claim is cost increasing and at variance with the provisions of Towards 2016 National Wage Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the arguments put forward by the parties the Court recommends that the upgrade should apply retropsectively to 1st June, 2007.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
27th January 2009______________________
ahDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.