FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : WATERWAYS IRELAND - AND - A NUMBER OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay parity with counterparts in Waterways Ireland
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for equality of treatment and pay parity with other staff doing the same or similar work at other locations. Waterways Ireland is a North-South implementation body established under the British Irish Agreement, 1999. It took over offices in Portumna and Tullamore from the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. The staff there became employees of Waterways Ireland on the same terms and conditions as when employed by the Department. Additional offices were set up by the Employer. It is the Union's claim that the new staff recruited to these offices are on better terms and conditions to the workers in Portumna and Tullamore, who have undergone major changes in their work. The Employers position is that the workers concerned with this claim are graded as Industrial workers as distinct from the Professional, Technical and Administrative grade of other workers.
On the 13th October, 2009 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th May, 2011.The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The workers who transferred to the Employer have seen major changes occur in their work. The work and systems operated are substantially the same as those of their administration colleagues in the other offices.
2 In 2007 an independent review of pay and grading structures stated that pay parity should be realised between the grades.
3 Administration workers in the other offices may move between posts to broaden their experience. The workers concerned with this claim are denied that opportunity.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 There is a clear line of distinction between the Industrial and Professional, Technical and Administrative grades. An existing Collective Agreement from 1993 established pay relationships but not parity between the grades.
2 There have been no discussions at national level regarding this claim and no moves have been made to change the 1993 Collective Agreement.
3 The British Irish Agreement Act, 1999 states that the maximum head count in waterways Ireland is 381. This position results in strict constraints regarding appointments to positions in the organisation. The organisation is prevented from changing these grades.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court's opinion there may be merit in the Union's claim if, as it contends, the claimants are engaged in the same or substantially similar work as those upon whom they rely as comparators. However, there are a number of crucial issues which need to be addressed before the Court could form a definitive view on the whether or not the claim should be conceded. These issues relate to: -
•The factual position concerning the differences, if any, between the work performed by the claimants and their comparators.
•The applicability of the 1993 Agreement referred to by the employer to the claimants and the extent to which it is a relevant consideration in evaluating the claim.
•The extent if any to which the Public Service Agreement 2010 - 2014 impacts on the claim.
•The potential for consequential claims should the claim be conceded.
•The extent to which the organisational structure within the employment including the feasibility of effecting change in that structure so as to accommodate a resolution of the current dispute.
These are matters which should have been fully addressed between the parties in conciliation, in accordance with normal procedure, before the matter was referred to the Court.
The court recommends that the parties now refer the dispute to conciliation and that they seek the earliest possible date for a conciliation conference. The conciliation process should be completed by mid-June and if agreement is not reached the dispute should be referred back to the Court under s.26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. The court will then seek to facilitate the parties with a hearing before the end of July 2011.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th May, 2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.