FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COMMISSIONERS OF IRISH LIGHTS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay Reduction.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Employer in relation to pay reductions. The Commissioner of Irish Lights (CIL) are the General Lighthouse Authority for Ireland and are responsible for maintaining navigation aids around the coast of the whole island. CIL is a statutory body and is funded by fees charged to ships using UK and Irish Ports, which are paid into the General Lighthouse Fund (GLF). CIL is also funded by the Irish Exchequer. Pay rates have been linked to Irish Civil Service pay rates for many years and CIL employees have benefitted fully from all National wage agreements and benchmarking awards. In 1998 the direct pay link was broken when CIL refused to introduce long service increments and progression to higher pay scales which were introduced in the Civil Service at that time. The Employer is now seeking to apply Civil Service pay reductions from January 2010 and contends that there is a need to cut costs and as Civil Service pay increases were previously applied, it is not unreasonable to expect that pay reductions now be applied in line with Civil Service pay reductions. The Unions strongly object to this claim and do not accept a pay reduction of any sort.
The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th July, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd September, 2010.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions contend that the Employer is in a sound financial position and there is no apparent need for pay reductions to be applied.
2. In 1998 the direct link withIrish Civil Service pay rates was effectively terminated by the Employer therefore there is no basis for pay reductions now.
3. The current pay rates in CIL are lower than those in the Civil Service as a result of the 1998 Civil Service pay adjustments not being fully applied. The Unions contend that pay in CIL has effectively been reduced since this time.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. CIL wishes to maintain direct pay links with the Civil Service and contends that the long-established links are still in effect. CIL employees have benefitted fully from pay increases previously applied in the Irish Civil Service.
2. CIL is experiencing pressure from both the Irish and UK Governments to cut costs and to apply pay cuts in line with Irish Civil Service pay reductions.
3.CIL contends that cost cutting measures have been in place within the organisation since early 2009 and expenditure has been cut in all areas. These pay reductions sought by the Employer are just one example of the measures that are necessary to reduce expenditure.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has previously recommended pay reductions in circumstances where: -
(a) There was a demonstrable need to reduce pay costs, based on independent financial assessments, so as to maintain the viability of the enterprise and the employment which it provided, and
(b) Long established pay parity existed with public sector employments in which pay reductions had been implemented.
The Court notes the Commissioners’ argument that the attainment of the proposed pays reductions are imperative having regard to its economic and commercial circumstances. However, the Court is not satisfied that the basis for that assertion has been fully or satisfactorily disclosed to the Unions or explored in negotiation.
Furthermore, while pay movement in the CIL has followed that in the Public Service it is not directly or fully aligned to Civil Service scales. In that regard the Court notes that figures furnished by the Unions disclose that the absence of long service increments in the CIL pay scales has resulted in the pay of a significant number of CIL staff being already lower than the post reduction pay of those in corresponding grades, with comparable service, in the Civil Service. While the management representatives were unable to comment on the veracity of the Unions’ claims in that regard, this is a matter of considerable importance and should be clarified between the parties.
The Court recommends that the parties should enter into further negotiations on this matter. In particular the Commissioners should provide the Unions with full details of the financial and other information giving rise to its contention that the proposed reductions are necessitated by its economic and commercial circumstances. The Unions should, if they so wish, be facilitated in having this information independently assessed. The parties should also explore fully the Unions’ claims that a significant number of their members are already paid less than the post reduction scales applicable to corresponding public service grades.
These negotiation should commence as soon as practicable after this Recommendation is accepted. They should conclude within the period of not more than two months after which outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th September, 2010______________________
SCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.