LCR22586

1.Outstanding Issues Requiring Agreement

BACKGROUND:

2.This matter was referred to the Labour Court on 29 April 2022 by the Chairman of the Early Years' Service Joint Labour Committee. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 May 2022.


RECOMMENDATION:

This matter comes before the Court as a referral by the Chairman of the Early Years' Service Joint Labour Committee (the JLC) made under Section 42B(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (the Act). That referral was made on the basis that (a) the JLC had failed to formulate proposals for an Employment Regulation Order (an ERO) and (b) that at least some of the members of the JLC had requested the Chairman to submit the outstanding issues following the failure of the JLC to formulate proposals, to the Court.

The Court, in accordance with the Act at Section 42B(5), invited the members of the JLC to a hearing which was held within 21 days of the date of referral by the Chairman at which the Court provided an opportunity to be heard to each member of the JLC. The Court invited the members to provide the Court with written submissions in advance of the hearing. In the event, the Court received a submission from Ms Diane Jackson (a worker side member) on behalf of all worker side members of the JLC, from Ms Elaine Dunne (an employer side member), and from IBEC on behalf of five employer side members.

The members’ comprehensive written submissions to the Court addressed the outstanding issues as referred by the Chairman which she described as issues relating to “the remaining three identified roles within the sector”.

The submissions of the members also addressed matters associated with the form of proposals for an ERO which might be adopted by the JLC. The Court clarified to the members that it is a matter for the JLC itself in exercise of its statutory functions to decide upon the form of their proposals. In the event that the JLC does ultimately adopt proposals for an ERO, the Court will have a statutory function under section 42B(12)(c) of the Act to determine if such proposals are “in a suitable form for adoption”. In those circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Court, in a recommendation made under Section 42B(6), to express an opinion on this matter. In any event the form of the ERO was not referred to the Court as an outstanding issue by the Chairman.

The submission of some members appeared to the Court to relate in part to the content of proposals for an ERO which have previously been formulated by the JLC and the Court made clear that it had no function in relation to any such proposals in advance of (a) any possible referral made under Section 42B(10) of the Act of such proposals following their adoption by the JLC, or (b) a referral by the Chairman following a failure by the JLC to adopt such proposals.

The Court asked the members at the hearing to consider whether their written submissions could be taken as read and all agreed that they could be so taken.

The written submissions of the members of the JLC to the Court make clear that seven members of the JLC share a consensus view as to how proposals for an ERO should address the outstanding issues which have been referred to the Court by the Chairman. Five members do not share that consensus view.

It is concerning to the Court that, notwithstanding a majority of the membership of the JLC being agreed on a position as regards the “outstanding issues”, the JLC failed to formulate proposals for an ERO. It appears to the Court that the members have available to them a clear means of deciding matters where a JLC is not unanimous on a matter but where the majority of the members of the JLC share a view as to how such a matter should be addressed or resolved.

Having regard to the representations made by the parties at its hearing and the detailed submissions of the parties as regards the economic and commercial circumstances in relation to the Early Years Service sector, the Court recommends that the consensus position of the majority of the members of the JLC should be agreed by the JLC.

The Court therefore Recommends that the rates of pay to be provided for in proposals for an ERO should be as follows:

Early Years Lead Educator / Room Leader / SAC co-ordinator - €14.00 PH

Graduate early Years lead Educator / Room Leader / SAC - €15.50 PH

Deputy Manager - €15.70 PH

Manager - €16.50 PH

Graduate Manager - €17.25 PH

The Court is satisfied that the Recommendation set out above reflects the merits of the dispute before it and that its terms should promote harmonious relations between workers and employers and avoid industrial unrest in the sector.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
OC	______________________
13 May 2022	Chairman