FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH KERRY DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Benchmarking Pay Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for the application of benchmarking with regards to its member. The Company applied its own salary scale up until 2006 by reference to best practice in the Local Authority. Following salary guidelines introduced by Pobal, who fund the Company, the worker concerned found she was outside of the maximum point of the recommended Pobal salary scale. The Union contends that the worker should benefit from benchmarking proposals. The Company challenged the instruction from Pobal regarding the worker's place on the revised salary scale, but was left with no option but to comply with the process.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commision. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 22nd December, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th March, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The worker was in the employment of the Company at the time of the Benchmarking award and should have been awarded the same percentage increases. By not doing this there was a perceived level of unfairness in the way that some members of staff were dealt with.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company does not have any grievance with the employee in question on this matter. However, due to the economic situation, funding from Pobal has reduced and the prospect of receiving additional funding for such a claim as this will be extremely difficult to realise.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court carefully considered the oral and written submissions of both parties in this case. The Court notes the level of co-operation and understanding that exists between the Union and the Partnership and the mutual commitment to agreeing an acceptable resolution to this dispute. This issue has been going on for several years and whilst the economic and financial background has changed significantly since it was originally raised with management, the Court is of the view that, as it is an individual case, it would be an injustice not to address it in the context of the circumstances then prevailing.
The Court is of the view that, in the specific circumstances of this case, the proposal, put by the Partnership to the funding agency in 2006, to resolve this issue by applying the benchmarking award to the salary scale of the Worker concerned on a red circled basis, was fair and reasonable in all circumstances and should form the basis for resolving this dispute.
The Court encourages the parties to re-engage with the funding agency with a view to bringing this matter to a final conclusion.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
19th April,2010______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.