FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL COLLEGE OF IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. An LRC agreement and the College's plans to introduce a new model of pay progression.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns an agreement reached between the parties at the LRC in November 2013 and the Employer's plans to introduce a new model of pay progression in the College. The Union said that when their members signed up to an incremental freeze they had a reasonable expectation that incremental credit would be reinstated on the expiry of the agreement. The Employer said that in July 2013 it informed SIPTU that the NCI Governing Body required a new model of pay to replace the existing scale system because that model was not sustainable for the future. 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 11th August 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd September 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union at no stage refused to engage with the College regarding discussions on an alternative method of pay progression.
- 2. The Agreement reached at the LRC in 2013 provides for the ‘parties to meaningfully re-engage on the issue of increments with a view to considering alternative mechanisms in order to address the positions outlined at conciliation'
3. Management have confirmed that they have the money to pay increments for this year but have refused to pay this money to staff as they now see the opportunity to force performance-related pay on to the members.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It is the College’s position that the current model of pay progression is no longer sustainable and a more flexible model of pay progression that is linked to the College’s financial performance is required.
2. Pay and pensions were restored on 1 August 2013. However, despite the College’s development and circulation of a new pay progression model and its requests that the parties engage in discussions regarding same, no dialogue on the alternative model has been forthcoming from SIPTU to date.
3. The College is committed to pay progression for all staff but discussions need to commence and agreement needs to be reached on the new model of pay progression in order for any award to be made.
RECOMMENDATION:
The agreement concluded at the LRC, dated 6thNovember 2013, committed the parties to further engagement on the issue of increments with a view to considering alternative mechanisms“in order to address the positions outlined at conciliation”.However, it is clear that neither party modified the position that it adopted at Conciliation with the result that no real engagement occurred
In order to break the impasse that has developed the Court recommends that the College should agree to pay one increment falling due to each individual on or after August 2013. The parties should then engage through the LRC in negotiations directed at agreeing mutually acceptable alternative arrangements for pay progression. These negotiations should continue for a period not exceeding three months from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation. If, at the end of that period, agreement is not reached the matter should be processed to the final stage of their dispute procedure for definitive adjudication.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
1st October, 2014.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.