FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN AIDS ALLIANCE - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Cut in rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between the Dublin Aids Alliance and IMPACT in relation to reductions in pay, cessation of health insurance payments and a further pay freeze. Management's position is that the reductions are necessary as a result of a reduction in funding to the service. The Union's position is that options such as shorter working weeks, unpaid leave be explored as an alternative to pay reductions.
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 23rd July 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th November 2012.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Dublin Aids Alliance has incurred continuous significant losses to funding in the past number of years. In the current circumstances and in the absence of other viable options, the employer must implement pay reductions, cease the payment of health insurance premia and implement a pay freeze going forward.
2. The organisation cannot consider implementing shorter working hours or reductions in annual leave as it must protect front line services.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union does not accept that the workers should solely absorb the cuts in funding, especially as the organisation has funding in place to address the cuts. The Union position is that pay rates should be restored and the awards of increments be reinstated. Although regrettable, the Union accepts that the payment of Health Insurance cannot continue going forward.
2. There have been other options put forward by the Union in relation to alternatives to pay cuts. The Union is willing to discuss reduction in the working week, holiday reduction and unpaid leave etc. These options have not been explored at any meaningful level with management.
RECOMMENDATION:
The workers associated with this claim are aligned for pay purposes with corresponding grades employed by HSE. On foot of that pay alignment the Union previously agreed to a reduction in pay of 5.5% in line with reductions in the pay of the grades with which they are aligned introduced under the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No 2) Act 2009.
Against that background the Court does not believe that there is any justifiable basis upon which the established pay linkage should be broken. Since the pay of the linked grades has not been further reduced, and is protected from further reduction under the Public Service Agreement, the Court cannot recommend that the pay reductions in issue be maintained.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the pay levels of the affected staff be restored in line with the Union's claims and that increments continue to be paid. The Court notes that the Union is prepared to agree to the employer's proposal on VHI cover.
The Court accepts, as does the Union, that the employer has serious financial difficulties arising from the reduction in its funding. It is noted that the Union have put forward proposals to address those difficulties which do not involve interference with core pay. The Court further recommends that the parties enter into discussions with a view to exploring all options available to address the financial circumstance of the Alliance including the options previously proposed by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th December,2012.______________________
AH.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.