LCR22987

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Pay Claim

BACKGROUND:

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 28th March 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

 A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th June 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court is a matter involving the trade union and nine separate private employers who are each funded by the Citizens Information Board. While the employers presented themselves as a group of companies / employers, it is clear that each company / employer is separate and that there are, consequently, nine separate trade disputes at issue before the Court.

The matters before the Court relate to a claim by the trade union that the employers should each apply the terms of public sector pay agreements to the rates of pay of workers and that the administrative workers employed by the nine employers should be afforded parity for pay purposes with the administrative staff of a named employer.

At the hearing of the Court the following was confirmed as being the position:

• All parties accept the guidelines which issued at the time for implementation of the 2003 Mc Hugh report which confirmed that the salary scales of these workers are directly linked to Health Service administrative grades.
• All parties accept that the terms of employment of the workers involved in these disputes are set out in the staff handbook which was most recently revised in February 2022, and that those terms of employment include the specific statement that:

“Pay scales are adjusted in accordance with national wage agreements”.

• All nine employers and the trade union have accepted a proposal from the Workplace Relations Commission dated May 2023 to resolve the within trade disputes that stated as follows:

“All employees will receive a pay increase aligned to the pay provisions set out in the Building Momentum public service agreement.”

• All nine employers commissioned an independent person who reported in September 2023 that “there is absolute parity between the job descriptions of the CIS Administrator and the MABS administrator”. All nine employers have accepted that independent report and its findings.

It is clear therefore that the parties are party to collective agreements which require the application of equivalent to the pay increases arising in the public sector from Building Momentum to the pay scales of the workers involved in these trade disputes. Similarly, the nine employers and the trade union agree that there is absolute parity between the job descriptions of the administrative staff of the nine employers and administrative staff of the MABS.

The Court has repeatedly made clear that the effective conduct of industrial relations requires that both parties adhere to the terms of their collective agreements until such time as they agree an amendment to or replacement of those agreements. No replacement agreement or amendment to such existing agreements has been negotiated by the parties to the within trade disputes.

The Court therefore recommends that:

 (a) Each of the nine employers implement the collective agreement which each concluded on their acceptance of the pay terms of the proposal of the Workplace Relations Commission.

 (b) The trade union and each of the nine employers engage further with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission to agree the implications of their acceptance that there is absolute parity between the job descriptions of the CIS Administrator and the MABS administrator. Any matters outstanding following that engagement can be referred further to the Court for a definitive recommendation.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
ÁM	______________________
21 June 2024	Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.