LCR15409

FULL RECOMMENDATION CD/96/580 RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR15409 (CC96/854) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FINGLAS COMMUNITY JOBS NETWORK - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Walsh

SUBJECT:
1. Pay increase.



BACKGROUND:

2. The Union's claim for a pay increase is on behalf of six supervisors who are employed on community employment schemes in Dublin. The schemes were approved in 1993 to create 1,000 part-time jobs for unemployed people. The supervisors work 39 hours per week for which they are remunerated at a rate of £195 per week. The Union claims that the supervisors perform the same duties as those on community enterprise schemes, who earn £270 per week.

The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on 4th October, 1996 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the issue was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 26th November, 1996.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Originally the supervisors concerned were not responsible for the drawing up of training programmes, unlike community enterprise supervisors. To enable the introduction of the schemes it was also necessary to pay lower salaries.

2. The supervisors' duties are now similar to those of community enterprise supervisors and there is no justification for a £75 per week differential. Workers on the schemes are also earning a higher hourly rate than that earned by the supervisors.



EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The employer accepts that the supervisors' salaries are inadequate.

2. The organisation is a local voluntary non-profit organisation and is dependent on a grant provided by FAS to pay salaries.

3. The organisation is not in a financial position to increase salaries without a corresponding increase in the grant received from FAS.



RECOMMENDATION:

The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties to the dispute, has come to the conclusion that the salary of the claimants warrants an improvement.

Noting that the position of Supervisor in the Community Job Network schemes embraces areas other than Finglas, the Court does not consider that it could make a recommendation in isolation.

It does, however, recommend that the parties to the dispute refer the issue on a joint basis to the funding party with the objective of increasing the allocation of funds for the category of worker involved.



Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Evelyn Owens
20th December, 1996______________________
D.G./S.G.Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.