FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TYNDALL INSTITUTE (UNIVERSITY COLLEGE CORK) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Application of agreed pay rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Union for the implementation of an agreed pay rate for 4 Workers. 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 6thFebruary 2013, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29thMay 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Institute does not apply the terms of public service pay agreements to this group of staff. They did not benefit from the Benchmarking exercise and their rates of pay are substantially below the rate that is applied to comparable grades within the parent company UCC.
2. The pay of this group is determined by way of irregular pay review mechanisms that align them to market rates for the job. The Union is seeking to have the agreed and accepted outcome of the last review applied to the staff affected.
3. The Union is not seeking an increase in the rate of pay rather it is seeking to have the agreed rate of pay applied in this case. All grades in the public service have had their agreed rate of pay applied to them. There is no justification for treating this group any differently. Applying the agreed rate of pay to a group of workers cannot be described as a cost increasing claim.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a cost increasing claim which contravenes and is specifically precluded by the Public Service Agreement.
2. The Financial Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (No 2) Act 2009 does not permit pay rates to be increased.
3. Management acknowledges that the increases sought represent the outcome of the independent pay review conducted at the Institutes request. Management acknowledges that it accepted the proposals that emerged from that review and agreed to implement them over three phases subject to the circumstances prevailing at the time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that there is merit in the Union’s claim. The rates of pay for the jobs affected have been agreed between the Union and Management on foot of an independent report that was accepted by both sides. Management decided to phase in the increases over a number of years in order to ease the financial implications for the Institute. The Workers did not object to this approach.
The Court finds, therefore, that the Union is seeking to have the agreed rate of pay applied to the workers concerned. This cannot be described as a claim for a pay increase.
Accordingly the Court finds for the Union and recommends that Management implement the agreed rates for the jobs involved.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
1st August, 2013.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.