FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TRALEE WOMEN'S RESOURCE CENTRE (REPRESENTED BY THE HR SUITE) - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. A claim for the restoration of pay and the reinstatement of increments.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim for the restoration of pay and the reinstatement of increments.
The Union said that the four Workers agreed to a temporary increment freeze in 2008. In April 2012 management implemented a 15% salary reduction which is still in place. The Union is seeking the recommencement of the awarding of increments and the restoration of the 15% pay cut.
The Employer said it relies fully on public funding and that the amount of funding is not guaranteed from year to year. It is not in a position to restore pay.
- 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 the 10 March 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4 May 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It was always understood by the Workers that as the public finances recovered, their salary cuts would be restored and their increments recommenced.
2. No public sector worker has had a reduction of 15% of their salary.
3. Under the Lansdowne Road Agreement, restoration of salary cuts in the wider public service has commenced.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to a cut in funding in 2012, it was necessary to apply a pay cut of 15% to the four Workers.
2. All expenditure of the Resource Centre is based on the funding that is available and the amount of this funding is not guaranteed from year to year.
3. The Board wrote to both the HSE and TUSLA and sought additional funding to allow for the restoration of pay and increments. Both of these requests were turned down.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by IMPACT on behalf of four employees employed at the Resource Centre. The Union seek the reinstatement of increments and the restoration of a 15% reduction in pay.
Due to a reduction in funding in 2012, staff salaries were reduced by 15% with effect from 1st April 2012. Salary scale increments have not been paid since 2008.
The Resource Centre is funded primarily by public funds, from HSE and TUSLA. The Claimant’s salaries were set by the National Advisory Committee facilitated by the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs in 2007, in accordance with their“Guidelines on Salary Rates for Staff of Community Development Projects”.
In recognition of the difficult financial position that the Resource Centre finds itself in due to lack of appropriate funding to restore pay, the Union sought a phased restoration of pay over a number of years with an element of retrospection and a restoration of increments from January 2017.
Management rejected the claim on the basis that its funders were unwilling to funds such payments. It indicated that it is currently undertaking a full organisation review of the Resource Centre and warned that the viability of the Resource Centre is at risk.
The Court notes that this review is taking place in circumstances where there is no indication that public funding to the Resource Centre is in jeopardy.
The Court notes that the increment freeze and the pay reductions that applied in this case were significantly different to those that applied to the public sector in general. Furthermore, the Court notes that general restoration of pay and future pay increases are issues which will shortly be the subject of discussions within the public sector generally, including the community sector. However, due to the significant differences in this case, the Court recommends that the parties should jointly co-operate in seeking sufficient funding from the HSE and TULSA to enable management to secure the appropriate funding to meet the Union’s expectations on the claims submitted to the Court.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
16 May, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.