INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969
SCOIL CHAITRIONA SENIOR
(REPRESENTED BY D.P. HURLEY & CO SOLICITORS)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR1801/00/CW.
2. The Union is in dispute with the management of the school in relation to the rate of pay for one of its members. It claims that the worker who is employed as a caretaker at the school, has not received any pay increase for approximately 7 years.
Management states that the Department of Education and Science provide the funding at primary level towards the cost of caretaking and secretarial services under two separate schemes.
One is the 1978/79 scheme for the employment of caretakers and clerical officers under which the Department meets the full cost of salary and employers PRSI. The worker was employed under this scheme until he resigned in 1988. He was re-employed again as a caretaker in 1993.
The 1978/79 scheme was replaced by a per-capita grant scheme as outlined in the PESP agreement of 1992. The worker would have reached the maximum of the caretaker's scale had he not resigned in 1988.
Management states that the claimant is employed under the PESP agreement of 1992, in common with other National schools. It can only pay out the grant as received from the Department in relation to that agreement. The claimant's salary was adjusted from the 1st of January, 2000.
The dispute was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation. A Rights Commissioner's hearing was held on the 24th of October, 2000. The Rights Commissioner recommended as follows:-
"I recommend that the rate of pay for the worker be increased to £272.93 per week from the 1st of October, 2000 and that he benefit from national pay increases and increments as they fall due."
Management appealed the recommendation to the Labour Court on the 5th of December, 2000 in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court heard the appeal on the 27th of February, 2001.
3. 1. The claimant's contract of employment sets out clearly the rate of pay for the caretaker's job, which the worker accepted.
2. The school can only pay out the grant it receives from the Department of Education and Science under the 1992 PESP scheme.
3. The claimant's salary was increased from the 1st of January, 2001.
4. The employee concerned comes under the PESP grant scheme and as such his rate of pay is determined by management and not by the Department.
4. 1. The worker's pay is substantially out of line with other caretakers employed in the education sector.
2. The worker has not received any pay increase for approximately seven years which was provided for under the various national agreements.
3. The worker has over 14 years' service with the school and as such should be placed at the top point of the pay scale.
4. The Union does not accept that the worker should carry out his duties similar to caretakers in Galway, and across the country for a rate of pay that is substantially less.
Having considered all aspects of this appeal, the Court accepts that this post is not aligned to the 1978/79 Department of Education and Science scheme, for the employment of caretakers, where the Department meets the full cost of salary and employer's PRSI and a scale of payments exists for caretakers. A new grant scheme was introduced under the PESP Agreement of 1992, which superseded the Department's scheme.
The Court is satisfied that the employment of this caretaker comes under the PESP grant scheme, and, therefore, the rate of pay applicable is a matter for the school authorities to
The Court notes the adjustment made in the caretaker's rate of pay from 1st January, 2000, and recommends that this rate should be accepted and increased in line with the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, the first phase of which should be made retrospective to 1st January, 2001.
It is not acceptable to the Court that a rate of pay should not have been increased in line with national wage agreements for a period of seven years. However, at this point, the Court is satisfied that the January 2000 increase reflects the non payment of increases during the period 1993 to 2000.
Therefore, the Court upholds the appeal made on behalf of the school and recommends acceptance of the rate offered and paid from January 2000, to be adjusted as recommended above.
The appeal of the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation is, hereby, upheld. The Court so decides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
12th March, 2001______________________
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.