LCR22899

SUBJECT:

Referral under S26(1) (C.C. NO.CAM-101074-23).

BACKGROUND:

This matter 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 24 October 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 January 2024.

UNION’S ARGUMENT:

1.    The Union state that despite its Members transferring over from CIS under TUPE in 2010, the Members have never received equivalent pay increases.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1.    The Employer states it has no discretion to agree to revisions to pay scales or pay increase without the prior sanction of its parent agency and funding levels.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute

The National Advocacy Service for People with Disabilities CLG (‘the NAS’) employs forty-eight staff in total. The Union has referred the within pay claim on behalf of its thirty-eight members employed by the NAS in the following roles: four Regional Administrators, four Regional Managers, eight Senior Advocates and twenty-two Advocates.

The NAS is funded indirectly by the Department of Social Protection through the Citizens Information Board (‘the CIB’). Before the establishment of the NAS in 2010, its advocacy work was performed by workers directly employed by the Citizens Information Service. The NAS was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee in 2014 and all aspects of its operation, including its funding, is regulated by a Service Level Agreement (‘SLA’) with the CIB. Pursuant to this SLA, job descriptions and salary scales applicable to NAS staff are subject to approval by the CIB and any proposal for a review of salaries must be made by way of a business case to the CIB, which if approved at that level, is then submitted to the to the Department of Social Protection.

The Claim

The Union submits that in the period since the establishment of the NAS in 2010, there has been a significant divergence between the pay and other terms and conditions of the Workers employed there versus those applicable to comparable grades employed in Citizen Information Services and in the Money Advisory and Budgeting Service (‘MABS’) which are also funded by the CIB. The Union is seeking to have the resulting disparity in pay and terms and conditions rectified, over a reasonable period of time, if necessary.

For its part, Management at the NAS submitted a business case to the CIB in May 2023 seeking a pay increase on behalf of its staff. Management, in making that business case, underlined its concerns to the funder about staff attraction and retention issues it is experiencing because of the relative low levels of pay in the organisation which are based on pay scales that date back to 2008 and that have not been adjusted in the meantime. The business case was, nevertheless, not accepted by the CIB.

Recommendation

The Court is of the view that the pay claim advance by the Union herein is well-founded, particularly having regard to the demonstrable divergences that have developed since 2010 between the pay and terms and conditions of the Workers compared to those enjoyed by comparable workers in related organisations under the CIB umbrella. The Court, therefore, recommends that Management should submit a business case to the CIB based on the within pay claim and that that business case should in turn be favourably received by the CIB, endorsed by it and forwarded to the ultimate funder, the Department of Social Protection.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
TH	______________________
5 January 2024	Deputy Chairman