LCR22662

1. (1) Red Circling (2) Pay Frequency.

BACKGROUND:

2. UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

• (i) The Union is seeking compensation for staff affected by the change from weekly and fortnightly pay to monthly payments. The Union seeks that half of the first year’s savings should be distributed among the staff being forced to comply with the new arrangements.
• (ii) The Union is also seeking the retention of benefits, red-circled for a small number of members prior to the merger of CIS, for as long as the members concerned remain in the employment and not, as proposed by the Employer, only for the period that they spend in their current roles.
  
  
  COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

• (i) A high number of staff had willingly changed to monthly pay without compensation. The Employer is willing to pay €50 to all staff.
• (ii) The Employer adhered to the rules set out in the Transfer of Undertakings Agreement (TUPE) and there is no provision to red-circle staff on the basis sought by the Union.

RECOMMENDATION :

There are two issues for the Court to consider.

With regard to the compensation sought for a change in the pay frequency, the Court notes the Employer’s willingness to make a payment in recognition of the efforts made by the Workers to ensure the success of the service.

In this regard, the Court believes that the Union claim for a once-off payment of €145 to the 80 people who are being forced to move to monthly payments against their wishes is perfectly reasonable.

The Court recommends that this payment be made.

The question of a payment of €50 to all employees was not before the Court, in itself, so the Court is not in a position to make a Recommendation on that matter but would observe that, as a matter of fact, such a payment need not be excluded by virtue of the Court’s Recommendation. In the event that any payment is made to other staff, unless such a payment exceeds €145, the Court does not believe that any such payment should be made in addition to the payment recommended above to the 80 staff concerned.

The second question of interpretation of ‘personal to holder’ is somewhat more complex. Both interpretations, as argued by the respective parties, are capable of being judged as correct, depending on the circumstances. Therefore, the matter has to be viewed in its specific context. It seems to the Court that the purpose of such ‘red circling’ is, primarily, to protect Workers from any dis improvements in conditions brought on by an alteration of their Employer’s organisational, structural or corporate arrangements. There is no dispute by the Employer about this and the Employer is prepared to offer those protections to affected staff for as long as they remain in their current role. There are, undoubtedly, situations where an ongoing entitlement to ‘red circled’ conditions is required to be protected even after Workers leave their current roles if this purpose is to be given real meaning. The Court is not satisfied that this is the situation in this case.

The only circumstances identified to the Court where Workers could stand to lose ‘red circled’ conditions were those in which an affected Worker might choose to accept a promotion. In the particular circumstances of this case, the Court does not believe that this would justify the Court in recommending that the Workers should be permitted to retain ‘red circled’ conditions after they leave their current role in order to take up a promotion.

The Court does not recommend acceptance of this latter part of the claim.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
SL	______________________
25 October 2022	Deputy Chairman