LCR22916

SUBJECT:

Complaint under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969

BACKGROUND:

This dispute concerns a complaint arising from the exclusion of a cohort of senior managers in the public sector health services from payment of an award recommended by the Review Body on Higher Remuneration in the Public Service in September 2007 (Report No. 42).  The Workers referred this case to the Labour Court on 12 December 2023 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 January 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The parties have a long history of collective bargaining, and their relationship is founded on an agreed approach to the utilisation of procedures up to an including engagement at the Workplace Relations Commission and agreed referral of unresolved matters to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 if required. The within trade dispute, however, has been referred to the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 whereunder the workers have, as required by the statute, undertaken in advance to accept the Recommendation of the Court. The referral follows a failure by the parties to agree a joint referral to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 as provided for by their collectively agreed procedures. It is the strong view of the Court that parties should, in the interest of orderly and good industrial relations, exhaust all agreed procedures in the manner agreed between them rather than abandoning those procedures in the manner which has occurred in this matter. There can be no basis in good industrial relations practice for the proposition that adherence to agreed procedures is, in effect, an a la carte menu.                

The matter underpinning this trade dispute relates to an outstanding matter of implementation of the outcome of a pay review. The matter is outstanding since 2007. There is no dispute between the parties as to whether the outcome of the review should be implemented. The dispute before the Court appears to be centred on the timing of any implementation and the forum for engagement on the matter.   The Court noted at its hearing that the employer appeared willing to engage comprehensively on the matter with the trade union in the context of ongoing engagements designed to facilitate the conclusion of a successor public service pay agreement to Building Momentum. The trade union has assured the Court of its commitment to the utilisation of agreed procedures at all times. 

Having regard therefore to the submissions of the parties, and all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties should engage fully on the within matter as an element of engagements on a successor pay agreement to Building Momentum. If no agreement is reached between the parties on a successor public sector pay agreement, or the within matter is not resolved as part of any such agreement, the matter should be referred again to the Workplace Relations Commission. If agreement is not reached at conciliation, the matter should be referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 for a definitive Recommendation.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
01 February 2024	Chairman