FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WICKLOW COMMUNITY & FAMILY SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. (1) The move from monthly to fortnightly pay (2) Incremental payments (3) The reintroduction of premium payments (4) An increase in travel expenses (5) The reinstatement of pay cuts (6) Minimum Hours Contracts.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to six issues. They are (1) The move from monthly to fortnightly pay (2) Incremental payments (3) The reintroduction of premium payments (4) An increase in travel expenses (5) The reinstatement of pay cuts (6) Minimum hours contracts.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was initially referred to the Labour Court on the 5 November 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearings took place on the 16 January 2015. At that hearing the parties agreed to return to the Workplace Relations Commission for further talks.
A further Labour Court hearing was scheduled for the 10 June 2015 which was adjourned at the request of the parties. The parties returned to the Workplace Relations Commission and the outstanding issues were referred to the Labour Court on the 9 December 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
- A further Labour Court hearing was scheduled for the 7 June 2017 which was adjourned at the request of the parties. The rescheduled Labour Court hearing took place on 11 July 2017.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers are low paid who find it difficult to make ends meets on monthly pay and request that they be paid fortnightly as home help workers are in the HSE.
2. The Company reduced the Workers pay twice by 5 % on each occasion and no incremental payments have been made since April 2011.
3. In 2012 the Company cut the premium payments without consultation and agreement with the Union.
4. The current travel expense is unfair and is capped at 202 kilometres.
5. The Workers deserve greater job security.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A move to fortnightly pay would require the Company to hire a suitably qualified person, which due to the budgetary constraints is not a viable option.
2. Between 2009 & 2013 the core funding from the HSE reduced by 15.5%. The Company is not in a financial position to restore pay cuts.
3. The Company has undertaken a costing exercise to estimate the financial implication of introducing incremental pay. If this was introduced it would seriously threaten the future financial viability of the company.
4. The bands are entirely unlinked to public service bands. However, the Company notes that the travel allowance received by many of its employees is far in excess of that received by those in the public sector.
5. Contracts are designed to accommodate the required flexibility.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive written and oral submission of both parties to this dispute.
The Court recommends as follows:
Minimum Hours Contract
That the Respondent implements the HSE Home Help Guaranteed Hours agreement based on the core contract hours agreed between the Company and the HSE.
The Court further recommends that the parties annually adjust the amount of the guaranteed hours for each staff member proportionately in line with adjustments in total Core Contract hours e.g. where those hours rise or fall, by say, 10%, the guaranteed hours of each worker should rise or fall in equal measure.
This arrangement should commence on 1 September 2017 and its operation should be reviewed in January 2018.
Pay
The Court sees merit in the Union's claim for pay restoration. However the Court can see no basis on which it could recommend full concession of the Union’s claim at this time.
Accordingly, in line with its assessment of the Company’s capacity to pay, the Court recommends that the hourly rate of pay of all staff covered by this claim be increased by 2% for a period of 12 months with effect from April 2018. The Court recommends that a further review of pay take place in December 2018 with a view to a further adjustment at the expiry of this pay round.
Incremental Pay Scales
Neither side was in a position to outline the precise history of the pay rates in place in the Company. They appear, however, to have the hallmarks of what was once a pay scale.
On this basis the Court recommends that the parties engage with a view to agreeing a process by which that pay scale is reinstated in the Company.
The parties should further agree a process by which staff will progress incrementally through that scale in a manner consistent with the Company’s capacity to pay.
Such talks should conclude before end December 2017 with proposals to be implemented in accordance with an agreed schedule thereafter.
Other issues
Noting the financial constraints on the Company the Court does not recommend concession at this time of any of the other claims before the Court.
Finally the Court notes the difficult financial circumstances of the Respondent Company and its near total reliance on funding from the HSE to finance its services. In those circumstances the Court recommends that the parties jointly approach the HSE with a view to securing additional funding to finance the cost of giving effect to the terms of this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
LS______________________
24 July, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.