LCR22442

1. Restoration Of Increments

BACKGROUND:

2. UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Unions are seeking the reinstatement of increments to all members employed within the service and an immediate increment for members.

2. The Unions are also seeking the retrospective payment of an increment for members, in light of the employer applying retrospective increments for some staff of four points within the Service.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Company state that it is not possible to concede the Trade Unions’ claim from the resources currently within its allocation.

2. Under charities legislation, the company cannot use donations for anything other than service provision. Additional monies would be specifically required to provide pay increases and this has not been provided for by the funding authority.

RECOMMENDATION :

This matter comes before the Court as a claim by the Trade Unions for the reinstatement of increments.

The employer has, in general and for reasons set out to the Court, not applied incremental pay progression since 2010. The Trade Unions contend that it did apply such progression in the case of two staff in 2015 and of a further staff member in 2020. This contention is disputed by the employer.

The parties made submissions to the Court as regards the outcome of two separate reports from financial experts in relation to the financial wellbeing of the employer in the context specifically of its capacity to address the claim of the Trade Unions.

It is a source of some concern to the Court that the outcome of the two reports were submitted to the Court as differing substantially on the critical elements giving rise to the trade dispute. The report of the employer’s auditor did not support the proposition that the employer had the financial capacity to address the Trade Unions’ claim. The Trade Unions contended that the expert engaged by them had concluded that the employer had the capacity to address the claim.

There was no shared clarity before the Court as to whether each of the claimants before the Court were in fact in receipt of a rate of pay which conforms with a point on a known pay scale of T�sla or the HSE. There did however appear to be consensus that, whereas the Trade Union seeks reinstatement and retrospection of increments for all of its members, the annual cost of implementation of one increment from a current date falls in the range of €7,500 to €10,000 in total.

The Court takes note of the offer by the employer to increase pay rates by 1% and that this offer was rejected by the Trade Unions.

In all of the circumstances, the Court concludes that account has to be taken both of the financial circumstances of the employer and the fact that pay progression has not taken place for employees over a long period of years. The Court therefore recommends that the employer should make payment of one increment to staff with effect from the date of this Recommendation.

The Court also Recommends that the parties should jointly approach Tusla so as to ensure that the effect of implementation of this Recommendation is taken into account in the context of engagement between the employer and Tusla into the future

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
SOC	______________________
9 AUG 2021	Chairman