FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DON BOSCO RESIDENTIAL CARE SERVICES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - F�RSA DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Claim for pay restoration.
BACKGROUND:
2. This 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 28 September 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 29 November 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's members are Section 38 workers and should receive all payments as outlined in the Public Service Stability Agreement 2013-2018 and the Lansdowne Road proposals.
2. The members suffered cuts in line with their colleagues in the Section 38 employments and are entitled to receive payment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a Section 38 agency under the Health Act 2004, the employer is entirely dependent on funding from Tusla Child and Family Agency. Despite extensive discussions with Tusla, funding has not been restored to the organisation.
2. The organisation does not dispute the rationale behind the Union's claim, however, they are pleading inability to pay any restoration until they receive the appropriate funding from Tusla. They are simply not in a position to implement pay restoration without this funding.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
Don Bosco Residential Care Services (‘the Respondent’) is a Section 38 Agency under the Health Act 2004. The within dispute concerns fifty-four Social Care staff employed by the Respondent whose pay was adjusted downwards under the Public Sector Agreement. The Union is seeking to have the pay restorations implemented in the wider public sector applied to the Respondent’s Social Care staff.
The Respondent submits that it is entirely dependent on funds it receives from the Child and Family Agency (TUSLA) and that funds have not been forthcoming to date from TUSLA to fund the pay restoration due to the Workers. The Respondent accepts that the Workers are de facto public sector workers and are entitled to the pay restoration they are seeking. However, in the absence of additional funding from TUSLA, the Respondent submits it is unable to implement pay restoration.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Respondent continues to use its best endeavours to seek the funding required from TUSLA to ensure that that the Workers receive pay restoration at the earliest possible date.
As this matter was referred to the Court under the Public Sector Agreement, the outcome is binding on the Parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
14 January 2019______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.