Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92137 Case Number: LCR13727 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: KILKENNY COLLEGE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning a claim by the Union for i) a Basic Pay Increase ii) the introduction of a Saturday/Sunday Premium iii) the introduction of a Sick Pay/Pension Scheme
Recommendation:
The Court has given careful consideration to all aspects of this
claim in particular the point made by the Union that the wage
element of the claim could be dealt with outside the terms of the
P.E.S.P.
The rates of pay were agreed by the parties in 1989 and the Court
could not therefore consider the employment as newly organised for
the purpose of P.E.S.P.
As the claims for increase in the basic wage of #10 per week and
premium payments are cost increasing the Court cannot recommend
concession of those claims.
The Court recommends the payment of the 3% under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. from the earliest due date and further recommends that
the parties enter into negotiations immediately on the additional
claims for a sick leave and pensions scheme.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92137 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13727
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: KILKENNY COLLEGE
(REPRESENTED BY FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning a claim by the Union for
i) a Basic Pay Increase
ii) the introduction of a Saturday/Sunday Premium
iii) the introduction of a Sick Pay/Pension Scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. The workers concerned are employed as domestic and outdoor
staff by the College and in April 1989 became members of the
Union. In October 1989, following a pay claim by the Union,
agreement on a basic rate of pay was reached between the parties
at a conciliation conference which resulted in an increase from
#98 to #117. It was agreed that this would remain in effect until
January, 1991.
In March, 1991 the Union met with the College and made a detailed
claim for a basic pay increase, the introduction of a Sick Pay
Scheme and the payment of a premium for Saturday and Sunday
working hours. The basis of the Union's claim was that the
employment was a newly organised one and that the gross wages of
#117 per week was unrealistic and out of line with similar
employment elsewhere. The College rejected the claim for any
increase in wages but agreed to look into the introduction of a
Sick Pay Scheme. Further negotiations took place and at a final
meeting on the 17th October, 1991, the Union added a claim for
payment of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.) and for the introduction of a pension scheme.
The College rejected the pay claims and in a letter of 14th
November, 1991 (copy furnished to the Court) indicated its
willingness to introduce a sick pay scheme on the condition that
the Union withdraw all other claims which because of their nature
were cost increasing and, therefore, prohibited by Clause 5 of
P.E.S.P.
The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Relations Commission on 20th November, 1991. A conciliation
conference was held on the 27th November, 1991 at which agreement
was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on
27th February, 1992 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd
April, 1992.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union contends that rates of pay within the College do
not compare favourably with those applicable to similar workers in
similar employment elsewhere. The rate of #117 agreed in 1989 was
agreed only with the intention of gradually establishing
improvements over a period of time. Such is the norm in a newly
organised employment where it cannot be expected that proper
conditions and wages be immediately implemented.
2. The claim for payment of a premium for Saturday/Sunday
working is a valid one and is the norm for workers of a similar
category in other industries.
3. There is a need for the introduction of a sick pay scheme but
the Union is not willing to forfeit its claims for payment of 3%
under Clause 3 of PESP, for basic pay increase or for premium
payments. The Union contends that the College, in refusing to
concede the claim is hiding behind the P.E.S.P. The workers are
contributing to productivity in dealing with an increase in
workloads due to the expansion of the College and the increase in
students enrolling. The Union cannot accept any comparison the
College makes with other employments as it would appear that these
employments do not have a Union negotiating for them.
COLLEGE'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union's claims for an increase in basic rates of pay and
for payment of a premium for Saturday/Sunday working are cost
increasing and are, therefore, prohibited by Clause 5 of the
P.E.S.P.
2. In 1989 the wage increases paid by the College brought the
workers in line with those paid in comparable employment and were
in fact over and above the those applicable under the Programme
for National Recovery (PNR).
3. The College cannot accept the claim for payment of a premium
for Saturday/Sunday working. No such premium is paid in other
educational establishments. Moreover the basis of the workers
contract is a 5/7, liability that is that all days are equal.
4. The College is willing to introduce a Sick Pay Scheme but on
the conditions set out in its letter of 14th November, 1991. It
is also willing, as it has been, to look into the payment of 3%
under Clause 3 of PESP and the introduction of a pension scheme.
These, it feels, can be dealt with at local level.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to all aspects of this
claim in particular the point made by the Union that the wage
element of the claim could be dealt with outside the terms of the
P.E.S.P.
The rates of pay were agreed by the parties in 1989 and the Court
could not therefore consider the employment as newly organised for
the purpose of P.E.S.P.
As the claims for increase in the basic wage of #10 per week and
premium payments are cost increasing the Court cannot recommend
concession of those claims.
The Court recommends the payment of the 3% under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. from the earliest due date and further recommends that
the parties enter into negotiations immediately on the additional
claims for a sick leave and pensions scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
6th August, 1992 Evelyn Owens
A.O.S.\M.H. ------------------------------------
Deputy Chairman.
Note:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.