LCR22465

1. Re-instatement of the Agreed Job Evaluation Scheme

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Union on 19 February 2021 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 September 2021 in a virtual Court room.




UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union argues that the refusal to re-instate the scheme takes no account of the January 2020 agreement to re-open access to the scheme, the Framework Agreement 2013 which protects the agreement and the provisions of the Haddington Road Agreement .

2. The Union does not accept that this is a cost increasing claim and rejects the assertion made by either Department of Children, Disability, Equality, Integration and Youth or the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that it is a cost increasing claim which is prohibited under the Public Service Stability Agreements.

3. The job evaluation scheme existed for this group of workers since 1971, well before their transfer to Tusla. It is protected under the terms of the Framework agreement entered into upon transfer.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer says that the scheme had been introduced by Tusla without necessary sanction.

2. The Employer states that this is a cost increasing claim under the terms of the PSSA.

3. According to the Employer this claim has potentially broader implications for the wider Public Service.




RECOMMENDATION :

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

This matter comes before the Court as a referral by the Trade Union made under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

The parties confirmed to the Court that they are party to a collective bargaining relationship and that they have in place agreed procedures for the resolution of trade disputes which might arise between them.

The parties also confirmed that it is not an agreed feature of those procedures that matters in dispute would be referred to the Court unilaterally by the Trade Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The parties also clarified to the Court that the matter before the Court had earlier been referred by the Trade Union in accordance with agreed procedures to the conciliation service of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) but that the employer had decided not to participate in conciliation.

In this matter the parties’ agreed procedures have not been utilised in order to attempt to find a resolution to the trade dispute between them.

One result of this has been that the parties have been deprived of the services of the Conciliation Service of the WRC and the Court has been deprived of an account of the insights which would normally emerge from the process of conciliation.

The Court notes that this trade dispute relates to the Trade Union’s claim that an earlier agreement to ‘re-open’ a job evaluation scheme should be implemented. The employer has submitted that an underpinning agreed feature of that scheme was that it would be, in implementation, a cost neutral scheme.

It is clear that the employer is required to secure sanction from relevant Government Departments in order to address the claim of the Trade Union and that such sanction has been denied. An element of the basis for the refusal of sanction is asserted to be the relevant Department’s assessment that the claim for re-opening of the cost neutral scheme is a cost increasing claim in the context of public service agreements.

The Court is consistently supportive of collective agreements where they exist.

The Court therefore recommends that the parties should return to their agreed procedures in order to attempt to find agreement between themselves on this trade dispute.

The Court is confident that, at a minimum, a return to conciliation at the WRC will assist in achieving an understanding as to how a claim for re-opening of a cost neutral job evaluation scheme is a cost increasing claim.

In addition, noting that the parties are in dispute as to whether the claim of the Trade Union is a cost increasing claim within the meaning of public service agreements, the Court is confident that the parties will be able at conciliation to determine, having regard to their Building Momentum public service agreement, the appropriate procedure for onward referral of this trade dispute if agreement is not found at conciliation.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
23 September 2021	Chairman