FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOLAS, THE FURTHER EDUCATION & TRAINING AUTHORITY - AND - 6 SOLAS INSTRUCTORS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Access To Higher Grade Pay Scale
BACKGROUND:
2. Six former FÁS Instructors in the employ of SOLAS claim to have less favourable terms and conditions than the instructors who transferred to the Education and Training Boards (ETBs).
The matter before the Court relates to the operation of a Restructuring and Pay Agreement providing access to higher scales.
Currently there are six instructors on the standard scale and 4 on the higher scale and thewithin matterrelates to the six staff who do not have the higher scale.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union claim that the operation of the 1997 Agreement for the six instructors in SOLAS has been negatively affected by the establishment of ETB’s and SOLAS.
The Union claims that the argument put forward by SOLAS Management that the current claim is a cost increasing claim for these six staff is in direct contradiction to the 2017 Agreement made by the Department of Education and Skills between ETBs and SIPTU.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
SOLAS sought clarification in relation to the matter from the Department of Education and Skills (DES) who in turn consulted with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform (DPER). The response received was that the claim was regarded as cost increasing and not permitted under PSSA 2018-2020.
SOLAS disputed that the 1997 agreement is being implemented incorrectly.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The matter before the Court relates to the alleged breach of a 1997 collective agreement by the employer. That agreement applies across a range of public service employments and provides for access to higher scales for a portion of employees in return for productivity and to the value of 1% of overall payroll cost. In this employment the collective agreement was implemented for this grade of employees by an arrangement which allocated the higher scale to 30% of employees in the grade at a given time.
The Claimants were, until an agreement arising from the establishment of SOLAS and ETB’s, part of a pool of 365 former FAS employees in the grade of whom 110 were on the higher scale. The Claimants, who were part of the small group who did not transfer from FAS to the ETB’s but who instead became part of SOLAS, are now part of a smaller group of 10 in the grade in SOLAS of whom 4 are on the higher scale.
The Court observes that the agreement in question provides for 30% of workers in a ‘pool’ to be on the higher scale. The Claimants are part of a ‘pool’ of 10 where 40% are currently on the higher scale. The Court cannot, against that background, find that the employer is in breach of the 1997 agreement.
The parties disagreed at the hearing of the Court as to whether the Claimants, either locally or at the Workplace Relations Commission, had proposed that the 6 persons in the grade who are not on the higher scale should be integrated with another grade of worker in the employment for the purposes of operation of the 1997 agreement. The Court is unable to make a recommendation on this proposition in light of the fact that the employer, at the hearing of the Court, asserted that it had no prior knowledge of such a claim and could not assess its potential implications. The Court does however recommend that, should the Trade Union seek the inclusion of the Claimants in a grade ‘pool’ other than their own for the purpose of the 1997 agreement, that proposition should form part of a claim raised locally and progressed through normal procedures as necessary thereafter.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
DC______________________
26 June 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.