LCR20041

SUBJECT:
1. Pay Review


BACKGROUND:

2. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions in relation to a pay review on behalf of 76 employees in the Information Technology (IT) unit of the organisation. Pay reviews for IT staff traditionally have been calculated in accordance with the Hay Market Movement Model which bases pay rates on market performances from the previous year to be paid forward in the coming year. There is an existing agreement between the Unions and the Employer which states that salary increases are determined by Hay market movements and National Wage Agreements and are paid at whichever the higher amount. The Unions contend that the IT group have been omitted from a pay increase round and are now seeking a pay adjustment based on the Hay market movement of 5.4% to be paid to staff from the 1st March 2009. The Unions further contend that pay increases linked to personal progression and performance have not been paid to the IT group and they are seeking the implementation of this procedure, as was recommended by the Labour Relations Commission in 2004. The Employer disputes this and is of the view that the IT group have been remunerated fully to date in accordance with their agreements. In relation to personal pay progression, the Employer maintains that, in the current economic climate, it is not in a financial position to pay increases based on individual performance and so rejects the Unions' claim.

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 17th May 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th October 2010 and a subsequent hearing took place on 7th April, 2011.




UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Unions are of the view that the Hay method of determining pay rates is based on historical information and payments are therefore in arrears as opposed to paid forward.

2.The Unions contend that the IT group have missed out on a pay round and are seeking the payment of this increase at the correct rate without further delay.

3. The Unions are seeking the implementation of personal pay increases based on individual performances.



EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer asserts that the IT group were not omitted from a pay round and were paid properly at all times.

2. As a result of the economic downturn and increased competition theEmployer has made significant financial losses and is not in a position to concede to any cost-increasing claim.

3. The Employer anticipates further financial losses and in a period of financial uncertainty cannot afford to concede to the Unions' claim for salary increases based on personal progression.





RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute.

IT Rates Progression

The Court is satisfied that staff whose pay is adjusted by way of increase under the terms of the prevailing national agreement received phased increases up to 31/01/2009. Staff whose pay was adjusted by reference to the HAY system received pay increases by annual adjustment up until 28/02/2009. Both pay systems rely on historical data to determine the level of pay adjustments for the coming period of time. Both groups have been treated equally through their respective pay systems in this regard.

Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.

Personal Pay Progression

The Court notes that the parties agreed, through the LRC, in 2004 to carry out a review of the pay system of the IT staff. This review has not been carried out to date some seven years later.

The Court takes the view that issues regarding personal pay progression should properly be addressed in the context of such a review.

Accordingly the Court recommends that the parties undertake such a review within six months and that issues regarding personal pay progression be addressed in the context of that review.

The Court so recommends.




Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Brendan Hayes
12th April 2011______________________
SCDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.