FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WATERFORD AREA PARTNERSHIP (REPRESENTED BY MR JOHN FARRELL, IBEC) - AND - 13 COMMUNITY WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Increments Freeze.
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 21 June 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30 January 2019.
After the recession began in 2008, the funding of the Partnership was cut, as a result of which a number of payroll reduction measures were introduced. One of these, the freezing of increments, is the subject of this case.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The restoration of increments should have formed part of the restoration process which began in 2015 and included the gradual restoration of hours and pay.
2. The freezing of increments has an uneven impact with some staff affected more than others.
3. The employer returned funds to the funder in 2017, €27,000, and 2018, €31,000, which should have gone towards the restoration of increments.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. Ideally, the Partnership would like to restore increments. However, because of the funding available, the only means of doing so in the case of programme staff is either to cut front-line services or to reduce staff numbers and in the case of admin. staff, the only option would be to reduce numbers.
2. The Board does not want any further erosion in front-line activities.
3. The Partnership is looking at ways of increasing funding and has raised the issue with the funder and is seeking to broaden the funding base.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is of the view that pay reduction measures, including the freezing of increments, that were imposed in the recession period should be unwound. The workers covered by this claim are entitled to have incremental progression restored.
The Court recognises the funding difficulties for the Employer in implementing this restoration, as they are dependent on external funding, and recommends that the parties should engage with each other with a view to reaching agreement on an ordered and structured process of restoration of incremental progression and that, furthermore, the parties should make a joint approach to the funder with a view to securing the funding necessary.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
6 February 2019______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.