FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK YOUTH SERVICE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Reconfiguration of services.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute arose from the Employer's decision to reconfigure services. 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 18th May, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th September, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers have consistently cooperated with all the changes introduced by the Employer.
2 The Employer's reconfiguration of services has severed the relationships built up with young people and communities.
3 The Workers should be paid on the 'Youth Ireland' pay scale for the post of Development Officer Grade I.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The majority of the Employer's funding comes from State Agencies.
2 The Employer was advised by its funders that reconfiguration would enable it to broaden the service it offers to young people.
3. The Employer believes the reconfiguration will also protect employment and ensure its future sustainability.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the parties are at cross-purposes in relation to the subject matter of the dispute referred to the Court. It would seem clear that the union are seeking to advance a claim in relation to pay. The Company confirmed to the Court that it had not agreed to a joint referral on pay and that local negotiation had commenced on that matter.
In these circumstances the Court can only recommend that the local discussions continue and that if the issue is not resolved in those discussions that it be jointly referred to the LRC and if necessary that it be jointly referred to the Court in accordance with normal procedure.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th September, 2015______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.