FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Non Payment of Certification Payments / Increments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to certification payments and increments. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that the Employer has incorrectly interpreted and applied LCR 20477, issued by the Labour Court in March, 2013. LCR 20477 dealt with the issue of red-circling the remuneration of the Claimants involved in this dispute. It is the Union's claim that recertification payments, paid to Workers upon revalidation of the qualifications required for their respective roles, must be encapsulated in the application of LCR 20477 and accordingly should be paid to the Claimants. The Employer rejects the Union's position, arguing that recertification payments are not applicable to this category of employee and furthermore, the issue of red-circling was previously dealt with in LCR 20477, which was accepted in full by both parties.
On the 24th August, 2015 the Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th November, 2015.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that LCR 20477 refers to the issue of red-circling of all remuneration, including certification payments.
2. The Union asserts that the Employer has failed to fully implement LCR 20477 as these Claimants have suffered a loss in earnings as a result in the restructuring initiative undertaken by the Employer.
3. The Union is seeking the retrospective payment of increments and certification payments allegedly owing to the Claimants.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The subject matters of this dispute were previously dealt with in LCR 20477 which was accepted by both parties.
2. LCR 20477 was accepted and implemented by the Employer without any undue delay.
3. The Employer contends that certification payments are not relevant to the Claimants involved in this dispute and accordingly cannot be paid to them.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 concerns a claim by the Union for retention of recertification payments to named employees previously employed as Friskem Supervisors who opted to transfer to the Airport Police Fire Services (APFS) when the role was eliminated as part of an overall restructuring arrangement of its security operations.
During the conciliation process, and in an effort to bring a resolution to this dispute, the Company confirmed to the Court that it offered to pay the Claimants a once off lump sum payment of €6000 gross plus a tax free €150 voucher.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that the Company’s offer is fair and reasonable in the circumstances and recommends that it should be accepted in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th November 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.