FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : DAA - AND - KENNETH MOORE (REPRESENTED BY MS KIRSTY KAVANAGH, KAVANAGH COLEMAN SOLICITORS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Payment of 4% Salary Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim for the payment of a 4% pay increase. The claimant disassociated himself from the trade union (SIPTU) representing him and a group of employees who had rejected a recommendation in 2015 of a 4% pay increase. The company have refused to pay as they are bound and covered by collective agreements and the recommendation remains rejected.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23 March 2016.
EMPLOYEE’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant has worked with the company for thirty seven years. He is not a member of the recognised trade union and he has accepted the terms of a Labour Court recommendation reference LCR 20997.
2. The claimant submits that he was previously impacted by a recommendation which damaged his pension entitlements.
3. Colleagues of the claimant in Cork have received a 4% pay increase provided for in LCR 20997 and he rejects any assertion by the employer that APFS employees as a whole have not been paid the increase.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claimant has always been a Dublin based graded employee and his conditions of employment have always been collectively bargained.
2. The employer acknowledged the claimant’s letter of the 4 November 2014 which notified them that he was no longer a member of the Union. The claimant was informed that in accordance with the Employee Hand book, he is bound by the collective agreements reached between the employer and the recognised trade union.
3. The union involved in LCR 20997 has not accepted that recommendation for implementation in the Claimant's location for staff of his grade and category.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Claimant’s representative clarified at the outset of the hearing that she was instructed by the Claimant in his personal capacity. The Court accepted the clarification that the Claimant was represented at the hearing by Kavanagh Coleman Solicitors and not by any other party.
The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Claimant contended that pay terms included in a Labour Court Recommendation issued in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Acts 1946 to 2015 (the Act) should be applied by the Employer to him.
The Employer contended before the Court that the Recommendation concerned, which contained detail as regards pay and other matters, currently has no application to the Claimant’s grade /category of employee at the Claimant’s location.
The Labour Court Recommendation at the base of this matter was one which arose, in accordance with the statute, from a referral by the Labour Relations Commission to the Court. There were five parties to the matter before the Court and, in accordance with the statute, a condition precedent for the referral by the Commission to the Court was that those parties were voluntarily agreeable to the referral.
The Court issued its Recommendation (LCR20997) on 26thMay 2015. That Recommendation has no meaning outside its content and the fact that it represents a recommendation from the Court as to how a dispute between the parties concerned should be resolved. It is the parties to the dispute who have the capacity to give the Recommendation of the Court standing by their voluntary conversion through their own processes of that Recommendation into an agreement between them.
The Court understands that the parties to the dispute giving rise to Recommendation LCR20997 intended, in the normal manner of practice of collective bargaining following the issue of a Labour Court Recommendation issued in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Act, to consider its content with a view to deciding whether to voluntarily conclude an agreement which, given the nature and content of Recommendation LCR20997, would carry obligations on both sides and bring about a change to the pay and other terms of the grades and categories concerned. The process followed by the parties to consider the Recommendation of the Court was a matter for the parties.
The Court understands from the submissions of the parties to the within case that the parties to the dispute giving rise to Recommendation LCR20997 have, through their processes, voluntarily converted that Recommendation into an agreement between them in certain locations and for certain grades / categories of employees of the employer.
The Court has not had the benefit of any views at its hearing from four of the parties to the dispute which gave rise to the Recommendation of the Court. The Employer, who was a party to the dispute giving rise to Recommendation LCR20997 and who was present at the hearing of the Court in the within matter, did however confirm to the Court that no agreement exists between the parties to the dispute giving rise to Recommendation LCR20997 which has application to the Claimant’s grade / category at the Claimant’s location.
The Court recognises that it is for the parties to collective bargaining in this employment to regulate their own affairs in terms of their attempts to make voluntary collective agreements and to voluntarily decide the detail of their application.
The Court rejects the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
14 April 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.