INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001,
AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004
THE OVAL CRECHE
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Union application under The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by The Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
2. The dispute concerns workers at the privately owned creche 'The Oval Creche' in Palmerstown, Dublin. The Union advised Management on the 6th January, 2006 that staff members had joined SIPTU and that SIPTU wished to discuss staff pay and conditions on their behalf. No discussions took place. The Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission, Advisory Service under S.I. No. 76 of 2004 - Industrial Relations Act, 1990 (The Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Resolution) (Declaration) Order, 2004. The Advisory Service Division wrote to the parties on 21st February, 2006 offering assistance. The Oval Creche management wrote to the Advisory Service stating: "We are a small company with twelve employees. We have always dealt directly with our employees".The Advisory Service wrote to the Union on the 14th March, 2006 stating the Company had declined to participate in the procedure provided for in the Code of Practice. The Union then referred the dispute to the Labour Court on the 11th April, 2006 in accordance with Section 2(1) Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
The Union's claim is for:
- Increase in rate of pay
- The introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme
- The introduction of a Pension Scheme
- Compassionate Leave Scheme
- Facilities for Breaks
A Labour Court hearing was held on the 2nd June 2006.
This matter was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
The Union had previously referred the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission pursuant to The Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. No. 76 of 2004). The employer declined to engage with the Commission under the Code.
At the hearing before the Court a Solicitor representing the employer appeared as a matter of courtesy and indicated that the employer would not be participating in the Court investigation.
No issue was raised as to the Court’s jurisdiction to investigate the dispute and to issue a recommendation. Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and that the dispute is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court has taken account of the submissions made by the Union and of the information which it provided and recommends as follows:
Rates of Pay.
The following rates should apply
|Rates per Hour||Unqualified Childcare Worker||Qualified Childcare Worker|
|Meet Standard Performance||€8.90||€9.60|
|Above Standard Performance||€9.21||€9.92|
In relation to the rate for Specialist/Montessori personnel, the Court recommends as follows:
|Rate per Hour||Specialist/Montessori|
|Meet Standard Performance||€10.81|
|Above Standard Performance||€11.34|
Introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme
The Court recommends that the Company introduce a sick pay scheme providing for four weeks sick leave per year on full pay less social welfare. All sick leave should be covered by a medical certificate. The scheme should apply to all employees who have completed their probationary period. The scheme should not operate in respect of the first 3 days of any illness.
The Court recommends that the employer should introduce a defined contribution pension scheme with a contribution of 5% of salary payable by the Employer and a matching 5% payable by the employee.
Three days paid compassionate leave should be allowed on the death of a parent, child or sibling.
Facilities for Breaks.
The employer should provide a suitable room at which staff can take breaks including meal breaks.
This recommendation should be implemented within one month of the date on which it is issued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.