FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHESHIRE IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. Maternity Pay And Pay For New Entrants
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court is a claim by the Union for a maternity top up payment and the restoration of pay rates for new entrants which was unilaterally changed by the employer in 2013. The issues were subject to a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 25 June 2014 and again under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission on the 13 January 2016. As agreement was not reached, the issues were referred to the Labour Court on the 27 January 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2 March 2016.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Labour Court has already recommended in favour of paying maternity top up payments to employees.
2. In April 2013 the employer unilaterally cut the pay rates for new entrants.
3. The manner in which the new entrants rates of pay was introduced in 2013 was not in keeping with good industrial relations procedures.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer agrees in principle to the implementation of a previous Labour Court recommendation to pay top up maternity payments on the basis that the appropriate additional funding would be received from the HSE.
2. The decision in 2013 to decrease the pay rates of new entrants was taken in order to secure the financial viability of the company.
3. The company competes through a tendering process against other private sector providers who have a much lower cost base.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court concern the Unions claim for (i) maternity top-up payment and (ii) restoration of pay and premium payments for new entrants.
Cheshire Foundation Ireland Limited t/a Cheshire Ireland is a not-for-profit service provider, grant aided on a block basis by the HSE in line with agreed service arrangements under Section 39 of the Health Act, 2004.
- (i)maternity top-up payment
- (ii)restoration of pay and premium payments for new entrants
The employer informed the Court of the difficulties it is encountering due to the HSE’s policy on moving from congregated settings to a “Strategy for Community Inclusion” which requires it to compete through a tendering process against other “for profit” private sector providers with lower cost bases. Therefore, due to its financial circumstances, the employer introduced new arrangements in respect of rates of pay and premium payments for new entrants commencing on or after 1stMay 2013.
There is no dispute between the parties that historically the rates of pay applicable in the organisation were aligned to the Department of Health Consolidated Salary Scales, up to the changes which were made in 2013. The Union referred to the fact that in 2014 the employer agreed to implement the Haddington Road Agreement in full. Therefore, the Union maintained that staff had delivered on their commitments under the Agreement however, the employer had not realigned the new entrants rates as encompassed in the Agreement.
The Court has considered the submissions made by both parties. The Court notes that pay terms for new entrants were introduced without consultation or agreement with the Unions. It is the consistent practice of the Court to uphold collective agreements and the Court can see no reason to depart from that practice in this case. Accordingly, the Court recommends the reintroduction from 1stMarch 2016 of pay and premium rates as aligned to the Department of Health Consolidated Salary Scales for those employees affected by the introduction of new entrants rates.
Furthermore, the Court recommends that in view of the serious financial challenges facing the organisation, the parties should enter into discussions, under the auspice of the Workplace Relations Commission, if necessary, to discuss the situation going forward. The Court recommends that these discussions should take place without precondition and there should be full disclosure of all relevant information between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
08 March 2016______________________
LSDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.