FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH FEDERATION OF UNIVERSITY TEACHERS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim, by the Workers in the Tyndall Research Institute, for pay parity with other employees in U.C.C.. 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 12th December, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th March, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Is is unfair that the Workers are paid less than other staff performing the same or substantially similar work.
2 This claim predates both the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No.2) Act 2009.
3 The Workers are asking that this historical anomaly be corrected.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Concession of this cost-increasing claim would have serious financial consequences for the University.
2 Concession of this cost-increasing claim is, however, precluded both by the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and by the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No.2) Act 2009.
3. The University is, therefore, not in a position to address the merits or otherwise of this claim at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court, submitted by SIPTU and IFUT, concerns a claim for pay parity for members employed at the Tyndall Institute, UCC with their colleagues employed by the University. The Union submitted the claim on 31stMay 2010. Following a number of meetings the Unions, at the request of the University made a detailed submission on the claim on 3rdMay 2011. Following consultation with the Department of Education and Skills, the University rejected the claim on the basis that it was cost-increasing and consequently was debarred under the terms of Clause 1.27 of the Public Service Agreement 2010 – 2014 (the PSA) and by the terms of the Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No.2) Act, 2009 which prohibits pay increases to salaries where a pay deduction has been made in accordance with section 2 of the Act.
It is not disputed that this is a cost-increasing claim within the meaning of the PSA.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that both the University and the Department for Education and Skills accept that the Claimants employed in the Tyndall Institute are employees of the University and fully accept that there should be no disparity in pay between the two parts of the University where work is of equal value.
Clause 1.27 of the PSA provides that no cost-increasing claims by trade unions or employees for improvements in pay or conditions of employment will be made or processed during the currency of the PSA. While the claim predates the conclusion of the PSA the reference to the Court clearly constitutes a processing of the claim.
Having regard to the terms of the PSA as the Court is obliged to apply the terms it cannot recommend concession of the claim at this time. Accordingly, the Court must reject the Unions’ claim before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th, March, 2012______________________
COFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Colm O'Flaherty, Court Secretary.