FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOUSING AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES AGENCY (HOUSING AGENCY) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay issue & retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of seventeen of its members employed in the Housing and Sustainable Communities Agency, more commonly known as the 'Housing Agency'. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for a retrospective pay increase on behalf of the Workers who transferred to the Housing Agency from the former National Building Agency (NBA). It is the Union's position that the Workers suffered a reduction in pay as a result of the cessation of a bonus payment which was no longer paid when Workers transferred to the Housing Agency. The Union is seeking restoration of the former pay rates and appropriate alignment to current Public Sector pay rates. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the Workers were redeployed to the Housing Agency under the terms of the Public Service Agreement where no reduction in basic pay and terms and conditions of employment was carried out.
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 31st March, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th June, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the bonus payment previously paid to Workers prior to their redeployment formed a part of basic pay and must be treated as such.
2. The Union asserts that the Workers have been treated in an inequitable manner and have suffered a significant financial loss since their redeployment.
3. The Union maintains that the Workers are receiving lesser pay and terms and conditions of employment in comparison to their colleagues carrying out analogous roles.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that it is not in a position to concede the Union's claim as it is bound by the terms of the Public Service Agreement which precludes cost-increasing claims.
2. The Employer asserts that concession of the Union's claim would have a detrimental effect on the competitiveness and future viability of the Agency.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns former National Building Agency (NBA) employees who were transferred to the “Housing Agency” in August 2012. The Union on their behalf sought alignment to public sector rates of pay instead of the reduced 93.5% of the scale which applied to them on transfer, with retrospection back to 2008.
The Court notes that it is agreed between the parties that the dispute before the Court is under the terms of the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 and the Recommendation of the Court is binding on both parties.
Prior to 1997 NBA employees were directly aligned to public sector pay scales. Employees who joined NBA post 1997 were paid a salary based on NBA salary ranges plus a discretionary performance related bonus payment, which in the main equated to 7% of their salary. In 2008 the bonus payment was 2% and as bonus payments in the public sector were discontinued in 2009, no bonus payments have been paid since in accordance with the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014. Therefore it was decided when transferring to the Housing Agency employees were to be transferred on 93.5% of the equivalent Civil Service/Local Authority pay grades and were assimilated onto the pay scales at the nearest monetary point.
Having considered the submissions made the Court is satisfied that those employees who transferred to the Housing Agency were transferred on no less favourable terms i.e. they retained their salary and suspended bonus payment and were transferred from a Defined Contribution Pension Scheme to the Housing Agency’s Defined Benefit Pension Scheme. Therefore no question of retrospection arises prior to date of transfer and the Court does not uphold the Union’s claim for retrospection back to 2008.
The Court is of the understanding that employees engaged in the same work on the same grade receive the same pay within the public sector, therefore the Court is of the view that the parties should enter into discussions on this matter going forward.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th June 2014______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.