FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COUNTY WEXFORD COMMUNITY WORKSHOP (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH NURSES AND MIDWIVES ORGANISATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Non Application Of Incremental Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions regarding the non application of incremental pay. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th March 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November 2017. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- There is an agreed alignment of salaries in County Wexford Community Workshop (CWCW) with HSE consolidated Pay Scales.
- Public Sector pay cuts under FEMPI legislation have been applied to CWCW staff, hence, any increments now in place in Public Sector should apply to equivalent CWCW staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- The costs involved in meeting the Unions claim are prohibitive.
- Service reductions or redundancies are currently the only options available to the Company to fund any potential increments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background
County Wexford Community Workshop (“CWCW”) is a voluntary organisation that provides a broad range of services to both children and adults with intellectual disabilities in the South East. It is structured as a company limited by guarantee. The organisation employs approximately 150 staff including nurses, care assistants, social care workers and support workers.
CWCW is a so-called Section 39 Agency and provides services under a service level agreement with the HSE. 80% of its funding is proved by the HSE; the remaining 20% comes from fundraising. Between 2008 and 2013, the HSE reduced its funding to CWCW year on year by between 1% and 5.75%. Up until 2009, CWCW applied for, and received, a separate payment from the HSE to cover payment of increments to staff. This payment was discontinued in 2009 and, as a consequence, staff have not received any increments since 2010. CWCW is prohibited by the terms of its governance arrangements from applying privately raised-funds to payment of staff salaries or increments. CWCW is a not-for-profit organisation and has been operating on a break-even basis for the last number of years.
The Unions (SIPTU and INMO) representing staff at CWCW are seeking the reintroduction of annual increments for their members. The Court was informed by the employer that the non-adjusted annual cost of restoring increments would be in the region of €150,000.00. The Unions submit that their members have a contractual entitlement to receive an annual incremental increase in salary. This is denied by the employer.
IBEC submits that CWCW (in the absence of additional specific funding from the HSE) would have to reduce its service offering in order to fund the Unions’ request for payment of increments. This would have a detrimental impact on service users and would also result in a loss of jobs as a reduction in service levels would prompt a reduction in grant aid for the following year.
The Unions submit that the salaries of workers employed by CWCW are aligned with the HSE consolidated pay scales and that cuts imposed on all public-sector workers under FEMPI legislation were applied to their members. Nevertheless, workers at comparable grades in the HSE have not been denied their annual increments. CWCW does not accept that its staff members’ salaries are aligned with those of equivalent grades on the HSE consolidated pay scales. It does, however, agree that “there are parallels” between the salary levels of workers in section 39 agencies and the HSE.
Recommendation
Firstly, the Court does not accept the submission advanced by IBEC on behalf of CWCW that there is no alignment of salary levels of those working in section 39 agencies and those workers in equivalent grades directly employed by the HSE. HSE staff continue to receive increments and it follows that those whose pay is aligned with the latter are also entitled to receive the same increments.
It is not disputed that the CWCW has been receiving a reduced level of funding from the HSE since 2008 and is, nevertheless, required to deliver the same level of service as hitherto. In that regard, the Court has considerable sympathy for the CWCW which finds itself in a wholly unsatisfactory situation not of its own making. It does not have any control over its level of funding nor does it have de facto control over the pay levels of its staff. It is manifestly the case that CWCW is not being provided with sufficient funds to meet its obligations to staff. Nevertheless, having regard to the pay alignment referred to above, the Court has no option but to acknowledge the entitlement of the staff concerned to payment of increments and to recommend concession of the Unions’ claims. The Court further recommends that the parties should jointly approach the HSE to secure the resources necessary to meet the cost of this Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
05 December 2017______________________
JDDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.