FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES: GALWAY COUNTY COUNCIL (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT AGENCY) - AND - 60 GENERAL OPERATIVES & DRIVERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Drivers Retrospective Pay 3. 1. The dispute relates to the non-implementation of a 35 year old circular and the Union is looking for this to be implemented retrospectively.
4. 1. The Employer side acknowledges that the circular was not implemented but is in dispute surrounding the date of retrospective implementation. The trade dispute before the Court relates to the undisputed failure of the employer to implement a circular dated 1981 which provided for grading / pay of machinery drivers. The parties have locally agreed that the rates/ grading provided for by the 1981 circular should be implemented in respect of 60 workers approximately and that has happened with effect from April or July 2018 depending on certain circumstances. The matter before the Court relates to the level of retrospection which should be applied. The Trade Union has proposed that the matter should be resolved by payment to each worker of tax-free vouchers in the amount of €1,000 for each of eight years into the future. The employer has rejected that proposal and has itself proposed that retrospection of two years should be paid to each of the workers. Such retrospection would mean that the 1981 arrangements would have effect from April or July 2016. The parties before the Court are, understandably, unable to explain why the circular at issue was not implemented for 35 years in the Council. It is clear that no claim for implementation was made by the Trade Union until November 2016. In the view of the Court the situation before the Court is unusual in this sector where full collective bargaining arrangements are in place and have been in place since 1981. These arrangements result in regular agreements on all aspects of the terms and conditions of employment of workers in the sector and presumably, in 1981, resulted in the circular at issue before the Court. In those circumstances the Court believes that both parties must share responsibility for the fact that no issue was raised in respect of the 1981 circular until 2016. The base claim of the Trade Union is for full retrospection of up to 35 years in cases. In the view of the Court retrospection over such a long period of time would be unprecedented and unrealistic. The Trade Union has tabled a compromise proposal involving the annual payment of tax-free vouchers for a period of eight years. No example has been provided of a public sector employer making payment to workers, who by definition are paid from the public purse, by way of a tax-free voucher. In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties to the within dispute should recognise their shared responsibility for this unusual situation and should accept that the matter of retrospection should be resolved in a realistic and reasonable fashion. The Court therefore recommends that the offer of the employer of retrospection for a period of two years (inclusive of any retrospective payments already made) should be amended to retrospection for a period of three years and that payment in this amount should be accepted as full and final settlement of the within dispute. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary. |