FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARD AOIBHINN SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION INMO DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Non-payment of salary increments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to the Employer's alleged non-payment of salary increments. It is the Unions' claim that pay parity exists between the Workers involved in this claim and analogous workers employed directly by the HSE. On that basis the Unions claim that the Workers involved in this dispute have an entitlement to salary increments in line with those HSE workers. It is the Employer's assertion that it is not in a financial position to fund salary increments as a direct result of a reduction in funding from its primary funding source, the HSE.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 25th March, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th September, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is an agreed salary alignment existing between the Workers and HSE consolidated pay scales.
2. Pay cuts under FEMPI legislation have been imposed on the Workers as a result of this salary alignment.
3. The Workers are entitled to be paid salary increments in line with their peers in the HSE.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer operates as an agency under Section 39 of the Health Act 2004 and receives 90% of its funding from the HSE.
2. The Employer has experienced a reduction in HSE funding over a number of years.
3.While it acknowledges that Workers may have an entitlement to salary increments, the Employer is not in a financial position to fund same without an increase in funding from the HSE.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions and points made at its hearing.
The parties are agreed that the staff associated with this claim are aligned for pay purposes with HSE staff.
The parties are also agreed that the staff associated with this claim should be afforded increments in line with HSE staff to whom they are aligned.
The Court has considerable sympathy with the Employer who finds itself in an unsatisfactory situation influenced largely by its funding authority. The Employer does not control its funding and neither does it control the pay levels of its staff.
Nevertheless, having regard to the pay alignment already referred to, the Court has no option but to acknowledge the entitlement of the staff concerned to increments and to recommend concession of the Union claim.
The Court has been advised that engagements between the parties on similar issues in a similar institution are being supported by the funding authority. The Court suggests that any engagements which might arise in relation to implementation of this recommendation should follow a similar format.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
27th October 2015______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.