FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SONAS FREEDOM FROM DOMESTIC ABUSE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY FORSA) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. The reinstatement of increments.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to the reinstatement of increments.
The Union said that there has been a pay freeze to the incremental pay scale since 2009. However, new staff members have received increases of two incremental points and this does not allow for equal opportunity or fair procedures to occur.
The Employer said that it is not in a position to pay restorations until it receives the appropriate funding from Tusla.
- 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 16thNovember 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 30thJanuary 2019.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the restoration of incremental credit for pre-2009 staff and the introduction of incremental credit for post 2009 staff
2. The Union is also seeking a commitment for engagement on the matter for future increments thereafter.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
- 1. The Employer recognises and values the hard work and commitment shown by the workers in continuing to deliver these much needed services to the vulnerable clients in their care.
2. The Employer would like to be in a financial position which would allow for them to put in place pay increases for all employees, however, due to the financial reality that the organisation is faced with it is simply not viable to do so at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of Social Care Staff for the restoration of incremental credit for pre-2009 staff and the introduction of incremental credit for post 2009 staff. Increments were suspended in 2009.
The Union indicated to the Court that it was willing to modify its claim to seek payment of one increment with immediate effect provided a commitment is given by management to engage on the future application of increments for the Claimants.
Management rejected the claim on the basis that it cannot afford to pay the increments sought and its funders, TUSLA, are unwilling to provide it with the necessary funding to meet the Union’s claim.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that there is merit in the Union’s claim. Therefore, the Court recommends in favour of the Union’s modified claim and recommends that one increment should be implemented with immediate effect and the parties should jointly approach TUSLA to secure funding to meet the terms of the Labour Court’s Recommendation.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
6th February, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.