LCR22452

1.1. Pay Claim. 2. Non- Core Shift rates for Core Shift Workers covering Non-Core Shifts.

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 25 May 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 6 August 2021.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union are seeking a reasonable pay 3 year pay increase of 2.5% per annum commencing 1st April 2020.

2. The Union seek the Employer pay all workers the non-core shift rate of €21.17 when working on this shift.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer states all employees are compensated well above the current market rates.

2. The Employer states the company is not in a financial position to concede to a pay claim due to significant financial losses in 2020 and a very poor performance in 2021 with significant operational costs due to the COVID 19 pandemic.

RECOMMENDATION:

There are two issues in dispute between the parties before the Court. The first issue in dispute is the Unions claim for a three year pay deal to apply from the expiry of the last pay deal on the 31^stMarch 2020. In January 2020 the Employer tabled an offer of an increase of pay of 1.5% for each of the three years commencing on the 1^stApril 2020. The Union claim was for 5% for each of the three years.

However, because of the onset of Covid and the closure of the service for a period of time the Employer took their offer off the table. The Employer then tabled a proposal of no pay increase for 2020 and 2021 and an 0.5% increase for 2022. This proposal was rejected by the Union. The second issue relates to the payment rate for core workers covering non-core shifts.

It is the Union’s position that the Employer entered into a new ten- year contract in June 2020 and provision was made in the Employers tender for pay increases during the lifetime of the contract. The service was only closed from 28^thMarch 2020 to 8^thJune 2020 arising from Covid and while a four- month extension was granted to anyone whose NCT expired during that period this was a once off loss of revenue for the Employer. It is the Unions position that it could not accept a pay freeze for 2020 and 2021 and a half percent increase for 2021.

The Unions position is that as a minimum it would expect to get the same rate of increase it had received in the last pay deal. At the final conciliation the Employer put forward a proposal for a new pay model linking pay to increases in the test fee. This had never been discussed previously and was unacceptable to the Union. The second issue relates to payment in respect of non-core shifts that were introduced in 2006 and the Union are seeking that the same rate apply for core workers and non- core workers doing non- core shifts.

It is the Employer’s submission that the workers are currently compensated above the market rates. However, they did not provide any documentation to support that contention. The Employer submitted that it had suffered losses arising from Covid and as part of its new contract with the RSA it was required to make capital investments. Both of these issues would impact on their financial position for the first couple of years of the new contract. It is the Employer’s submission that due to drop in revenues in the early days of Covid it had to rely on the government TWSS grant scheme and that it is not in a position to fund pay increases.

The Employer did accept that when tendering for the new contract it would have factored pay increases over the ten- year period into its calculations. The Employer stated it was prepared to look for an increase in the test fee and if it received same it would give a percentage pay increase equal to the percentage of the increase in the test fee. The Employer informed the Court that it was prepared to look at such a model for the next three years. The Employer accepted that it had first raised this at the final conciliation hearing and that there had not been any discussions prior to that with the Union.

The Employer accepted that they had not costed their tender based on that model. In respect of the second issue, it is the Employer’s submission that this issue was addressed in Labour Court recommendation LCR16742. The Employer was prepared to renegotiate all the elements in LCR16742 but were not prepared to renegotiate this one element on its own. The Employer confirmed to the Court that the working by core staff of non- core shifts was on a voluntary basis and had been in operation since 2006. The Employer could not understand why this was now an issue.

The Court having considered the written submissions of the parties and the oral submissions on the day of the hearing recommends the following pay increases:

With effect from 1^stSeptember 2020 1.5%

With effect from 1^stApril 2021 2%

With effect from 1^stApril 2022 2.5%

In respect of the second issue the working of non-core shifts by core shifts workers, the Court notes that this work is currently carried out on a voluntary basis and has been done on that basis since 2006. On that basis the Court is not making any recommendation on this issue. In the future should there be any consideration in respect of changing the voluntary nature of this arrangement the issue of the appropriate rate of pay should be considered at that time.

The Court so Recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
TH	______________________
25 August 2021	Deputy Chairman