FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONEGAL VEC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Loss Of Earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for compensation for loss of earnings suffered due to the Workers being laid off for the months of November, December and January. This 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 17th December, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th September, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers have suffered an annual loss of three months earnings.
2 The Labour Court has recommended that compensation of 1.5 times the annual loss be paid for loss of earnings in the Public Sector.
3 The National Implementation Body for the Public Service has endorsed this as the formula to be applied in similar cases.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Employer's funding and revenues have fallen dramatically.
2 The Employer had to change the Workers' contracts of employment in order to protect their jobs.
3. The Employer is unable to compensate the Workers without the sanction of the Department of Education & Skills.
RECOMMENDATION:
It appears to the Court that there is no real dispute between the parties concerning the validity of the Union's claim. There is a dispute concerning the level at which compensation should be agreed. In the Court's view that matter is now settled by the Public Service Agreement 2010-2011 which provides for compensation at 1.5 times the annual loss. Accordingly, the Court recommends that compensation be agreed at that level.
However the real dispute concerns the refusal of the Department of Education and Skills to sanction payment of compensation.
The Court is fully satisfied that the Union's claim should be conceded. If, however, the VEC cannot pay compensation due to constraints placed on it by its parent Government Department it is unreasonable for it to continue to apply the changes in the conditions of employment giving rise to this dispute. In that regard both parties agree that the Public Service Agreement is applicable and that the pay and security of tenure of the workers concerned is protected by that Agreement.
The Court recommends that the VEC should again seek to obtain the requisite sanction to pay the the amount referred to above. In the event of the sanction being refused the affected workers should be restored to full-time working or offered suitable alternative employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th October, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.