FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALWAY MAYO INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Payment of 2.5% under towards 2016.
BACKGROUND:
2. This 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 4 March 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 June 2016 followed by a subsequent hearing on 8 February 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The technical staff have been confirmed to be fully compliant with the terms of the T16 agreement and implementation plan as written.
2. The technical staff have been treated unfairly relative to their colleagues in GMIT and have been artificially prevented from receiving fair treatment on this issue for reasons unrelated to GMIT.
3. All other categories within the Institute were paid, including administrative staff, who interface with the same CORE HR system utilised by the technical staff.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The payment of 2.5% was not authorised by the Department in 2008 as the Secretary General, following a review of the progress reports required under towards 2016, was not satisfied that there had been compliance in respect of Electronic Attendance Recording.
2. The Institute has no authority in respect of pay matters.
3. Public Sector Pay is a matter for the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform as it applies to the Institute sector.
RECOMMENDATION:
- The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that pay and conditions of employment for this grade of staff is determined nationally through single bargaining table discussions with the respective trade unions.
The Towards 2016 Agreement provided for pay increases for this grade in return for concessions set out at sections 31.63 to 31.69 of the Agreement. It is common case that the affected staff in this employment fully complied with the terms of that agreement. In particular the Court was told that the staff had undertaken all that was asked of them by Management regarding compliance with the Attendance Recording system it wished to operate.
However sanction for payment was not forthcoming from the relevant Government Department. The Department sought to conclude a sectoral agreement with the unions involved but had failed to do so between 2008 and the date on which the matter came before the Court. On that basis the claimants before the Court, though compliant with the terms of the Towards 2016 Agreement, were not in receipt of the payment associated with that compliance.
The Court was told that an agreement has now been reached with the majority of workers in the IOT sector in this category on the parameters within which the sector will comply with the Attendance Recording provisions of the Towards 2016 Agreement.
Both parties acknowledged that the matter before the Court amounted to a request for arbitration in accordance with the terms of the Public Service Agreement and accordingly both parties agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation in this case.
On that basis the Court recommends as follows:
- 1.That the THEA/Department/Institute offer the Claimants in this case the terms of the electronic Attendance Recording agreement accepted by the majority of the staff in the IOT sector. The operation of the electronic Attendance Recording is to commence when the equipment necessary to implement that system is installed and commissioned in GMIT.
2.On receipt of notification of acceptance of that offer by SIPTU on behalf of the Claimants, the Institute pay the Claimants the outstanding 2.5% increase with effect from the date on which full co-operation with Attendance Recording was in evidence.
The Court so recommends - 1.That the THEA/Department/Institute offer the Claimants in this case the terms of the electronic Attendance Recording agreement accepted by the majority of the staff in the IOT sector. The operation of the electronic Attendance Recording is to commence when the equipment necessary to implement that system is installed and commissioned in GMIT.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
14 February 2017______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.