FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY & TECHNOLOGICAL HIGHER EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION & SKILLS) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. 2.5% pay award under Towards 2016.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the implementation of the terms of a pay agreement. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for a pay increase arising from a National Pay Agreement Towards 2016, following the employer's proposed introduction and implementation of an electronic time management system. Payment of the increase was subject to the co-operation of the employees involved.
An agreement was reached at the Labour Relations Commission (now Workplace Relations Commission) in April 2014 in relation to co-operating with the electronic time attendance recording. It is the Employer's position that payment of the increase was not previously possible due to the terms of the relevant Public Service Agreement and they are not in a position to pay retrospectively. Further engagement took place at the WRC regarding payment of the 2.5%. The Employer is willing to apply the terms of the agreement and has offered to pay the increase from a prospective date in 2017.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th November, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st January, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue in dispute is the timing of the implementation of the pay agreement.
2. The Union is seeking retrospective application of the pay increase to the date of implementation of the electronic time and attendance system in various institutions.
3. The Union rejects the Employer's offer of implementation of the agreement in 2017.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that it was bound by the terms of various Public Service Agreements and was not in a position to implement a pay increase during the currency of the Agreements.
2. The Employer is not in a financial position to retrospectively apply a pay increase to the date of implementation.
3. The Employer has offered to implement the pay increase from July, 2017 onwards.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that it is agreed between the parties that this dispute has come before it under the terms of the Clause 4.1 of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013-2018 (The Lansdowne Road Agreement) and the Decision of the Court is binding on the parties.
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of technical employees for 2.5% increase due originally under “Towards 2016” and subsequently under the Public Service Agreement 2010-2014 (the Croke Parke Agreement). Payment was conditional on verification of co-operation with the introduction of an electronic time and attendance system. Under the latter Agreement it was not possible to pursue payment of the increase due to the constraints imposed by the FEMPI legislation.
On 4thApril 2014 an agreement was reached between all parties at the LRC (now knowns as the WRC) that at the conclusion of the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013-2016 (Haddington Road Agreement) the parties would engage under the auspices of the LRC towards seeking agreement on the modalities for the implementation of the Union’s claim under Towards 2016 in those Institutes where full co-operation with electronic time and attendance recording had been put in place on or before 1stSeptember 2014.
The Union now seeks payment of the increase from the date of implementation of the electronic time and attendance system in the various institutes.
The Employer offered to pay the increase in two moieties, from 1stJanuary 2017 and 1stJuly 2017 or alternatively the full payment from 1stJuly 2017.
Having considered the oral and written submission of the parties, the Court notes that there is no dispute regarding a verification exercise which was carried out to ascertain which Institutes are in compliance with and have committed to give full co-operation with the electronic time and attendance recording system by technical employees. Therefore in accordance with the LRC Agreement mentioned above, the Court recommends that the 2.5% should be paid in those Institutes where full co-operation with electronic time and attendance recording had been put in place on or before 1stSeptember 2014. Furthermore, the Court notes that at the hearing the representative from the Department of Education and Skills confirmed that where technical employees confirmed their willingness to co-operate with such electronic recording but where the requisite equipment is still not in place, they would also be entitled to be paid the increase. In such circumstances the Court also recommends that those employees should similarly be paid the 2.5% increase from the date such a commitment was given.
The Court so Decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th February 2017______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.