FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HR DEPARTMENT, ST. PATRICK'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, - AND - F�RSA TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay Equalisation (Retrospective Pay Issue)
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 11 June 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 September 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a retrospective pay increase for 6 Social Workers from 1 January 2018.
2. The affected Social Workers have performed the same role as their department colleagues employed pre-2012.
3. Nursing members received their pay restoration from 1 January 2018 and the Union contends that it is grossly unfair that their members would be treated differently.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer says that although Forsa asserts that the claim extends to 6 Social Workers only that it is difficult to foresee how a claim would not follow from the remaining 27 staff members.
2.The cost of this claim is prohibitive for an orgainisation such as this.
3. The Employer says that Nursing members received their pay restoration in 2018 as the facility employs 300 Nurses and it was finding it difficult to attract Nurses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The background to this matter involves the protection of pay rates for existing staff throughout the recession but the introduction of a new lower pay rate for new staff recruited from 2012 onwards. In response to a claim from the Trade Union made in March 2018, the employer equalised pay rates as between pre and post 2012 staff represented by the Trade Union with effect from January 2019. In early 2019 the Trade Union made a claim for the extension of retrospection of equalisation of pay rates to 2012 and later amended that claim such that it currently claims retrospection to 1stJanuary 2018.
Separately to the within claim, the employer equalised pay rates for nursing staff with effect from 1stJanuary 2018. The employer contends that this step was taken in response to challenges in recruiting and retaining nursing staff having regard to the uncompetitive nature of post 2012 rates by comparison with certain competitors. The employer has asserted to the Court that the cost of the application of this date to nursing staff exceeded available resources and required arrangements to be entered into with financial institutions in order to fund the initiative.
The Trade Union has not disputed before the Court the employer’s assertion that its concession of equalisation from an earlier date to nursing staff occurred in an environment where market forces affected the employer’s ability to recruit and retain nursing staff. No position has been put before the Court that similar challenges were faced by the employer in respect of the grades of staff represented by the Trade Union in the within claim.
The employer has submitted that the pay rates of a range of other staff have also been equalised with effect from 1stJanuary 2019. It has submitted that any concession to the within claim has the potential to ‘knock on’ to other staff and that it does not have the financial resources to meet the cost of any such implications. The Trade Union has asserted that it represents only six claimants in the within claim and that it is not aware of any other members who would seek to secure retrospection of equalisation to a date prior to 1stJanuary 2019 were the within claim to be conceded in whole or in part.
The Court concludes that the application of the date of 1stJanuary 2018 for equalisation of the pay rates of nursing staff reflected the particular challenges faced by the employer in terms of recruiting and retaining such staff. The Court has not been provided with a basis to conclude that a similar challenge was faced by the employer in respect of the staff whose claim is now before the Court. In those particular circumstances, the Court cannot conclude that it was unreasonable for the employer to implement equalisation of pay rates on different dates for different grades and categories of staff.
The Court therefore does not recommend concession of the within claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CC______________________
10 September 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.