FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SLIGO CREDIT UNION (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Agreed rates of Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Sligo Credit Union (represented by IBEC) and SIPTU in relation to pay rates of Cashiers and Clerical Officers employed by the Credit Union.
The Union is seeking that the negotiated payrates applied to Union members since 1998 be applied to staff who did not receive such rates. The Union is also seeking increases for staff who were promoted in terms of duties and responsibilities but not in financial terms.
Management's position is that the Union's claim is cost increasing and at variance with National Wage Agreements. It further contends that the pay rates are not out of line with comparable sectors and that the Credit Union is operating in an extremely competitive financial market and cannot sustain the additional costs.
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 on11th September 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 17th February, 2009 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The rates of pay of the workers are out of line with comparable employments. Negotiated pay rates were only applied to some staff and not to others.
2 The Union is seeking the retrospective application of agreed pay rates and a salary structure be put in place for staff who have increased responsibility in line with the additional services provided by the Credit Union.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The pay rates are not out of line with comparable employments. Any further increases in pay, beyond what have already been offered, are unsustainable and inappropriate.
2 The Union's claim is cost increasing and at variance with National Wage Agreements. In addition, given the current economic climate, specifically within the banking sector, the Credit Union cannot concede its position.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's view the current dispute should be addressed in a thorough review of the role of staff and the salary structure within the employment having regard to pay for similar work in comparable employments and other relevant considerations. Due regard should also be had, in this review to the developing needs of the Credit Union.
This review should commence as soon as practicable and should be completed within three months.
In the interim, the employer should offer, as set out in its letter to the Union of 3rd July 2008, should be accepted subject to the modification that the proposed increase of 1.5% be adjusted to 2% and that the 2.3% increase be adjusted to 3%.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd March 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.