FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TRAINING ORGANISATIONS ( IACTO) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay claim.
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 3 October 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 January 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Members in the Community Training Centres have not had a pay rise since 2007.
2. The Union submits that workers have accepted work changes in the intervening period.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The continued provision of essential services and the sustainability of the employment of those who provide them must not be put at risk.
2. The Employer stated that it operates from a limited pool of resources and cannot afford to cover the costs associated with the claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a pay claim by SIPTU on behalf of approximately 400 employees of Community Training Centres (“CTCs”) employed as Managers, Instructors and at Clerical level grades. The Union sought the following increases: -
- 4% with effect from 1stJanuary 2016
3.5% with effect from 1stJanuary 2017
2.5% with effect from 1stJanuary 2018 to expire 31stDecember 2018
The Union stated that the Claimants had not received pay increases since 2007 and in the meantime they have accepted changes in their work. It disputes the funding agencies’ contention that increases were not possible at the present time while pay restoration in the public sector is still ongoing. It stated that this reason was not acceptable as its members are not public servants.
The Employer rejected the claim stating that it operates from a limited pool of resources and cannot afford to cover the costs associated with the Union’s claim. It stated that up until 2013 pay scales in CTCs were tentatively linked to FÁS salary scales, however, with the dissolution of FÁS in that year that link no longer exists and no current link applies to any existing public sector pay scale. At the time FÁS were the funding agency for the CTCs. However, it argued that the Claimants did not endure reductions in pay under FEMPI legislation and were not subject to non-pay related elements of subsequent national agreements, in areas such as working time, as applied to those on public sector pay scales.
The Department of Education and Skills (hereinafter referred to as “the Department”) was not present at the hearing before the Court. It did provide the employer with a statement stating that that no additional funding was available for pay increases until the process of pay restoration in the public sector is complete.
The Employer stated that in circumstances where many other employees within the sector have their pay set by reference to CTC grades, it submitted that there could be far-reaching implications if the Court were to recommend an increase in pay within the sector.
The Court notes that while the Claimants are not public servants, CTCs are fully-funded Government agencies. The Department provides funding to SOLAS to support education and training provision provided by Education and Training Boards (ETBs). ETBs then contract with and fund CTCs. Pay in the public sector is governed by the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018 - 2020.
However, the Union told the Court that it has no confidence in the Department to engage with it regarding pay increases for CTC employees. The Union referred to a collective agreement entered into in 1999 and revised in 2012 which provided for participation by its funding agency in industrial relations matters, including participation at a hearing before the Court. Clause 21.10 (4) of the 1999 Agreement is entitled“Procedures for National/Collective Negotiations”and states;
- “if the parties fail to reach agreement as a result of direct discussions, the dispute may be referred to the Labour Relations Commission or other such mutually agreed body. FÁS as the funding agency will accompany IACTO to these proceedings and participate therein”.
At a previous hearing before the Court in 2014 on an unrelated matter, the Court, inter alia, recommended the following in Labour Court Recommendation No. 20804: -
- “Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that the parties concluded an Agreement in 1999 that contains both procedural arrangements for the orderly conduct of industrial relations and substantive provisions for the payment of an agreed ex-gratia amount where redundancies arise in the sector.
The Court notes that the 1999 Agreement has not been altered or amended in any way and remains in force between the parties. Accordingly, the Court takes the view that it should be honoured and complied with by all parties to the Agreement. ….
…...The Court further notes that the State Agencies that are now responsible for the funding of this sector have subsumed the Agencies that were parties to this Agreement. Accordingly, the Court recommends that all interested parties should meet to agree changes to the 1999 Agreement to enable it to more accurately reflect the current funding arrangements and structure of the sector.
The Union stated that the Agreement and the Court’s Recommendation in this regard had not been adhered to, resulting in its lack of trust in the agreed process.
Having considered the position of both parties, the Court is of the view that the Claimants are entitled to have clarity on how their pay will be reviewed going forward. The impact of the dissolution of FÁS in July 2013 has had implications for the 1999 Agreement in general and Clause 21.10 (4) in particular. This had resulted in uncertainty regarding the Claimants’ pay arrangements for the future. Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties (IACTO and the Union) should jointly approach the Department to seek clarity on the process for engagement and negotiations on pay in the CTCs and to “agree changes to the 1999 Agreement to enable it to more accurately reflect the current funding arrangements and structure of the sector”as recommended by the Court in LRC 20804 in order to support the conduct of good industrial relations as envisaged by the 1999 Agreement.
In all the circumstances, the Court does not recommend in favour of the Union’s pay claim at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
25 January 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.