LCR22515

1.Retention of Weekly Pay Cycle.

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27 August 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6 December 2021.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union state that there is no agreement on the change to a fortnightly payroll frequency for their members.

2. The Union state that the cohort of members affected are generally low paid with a significant number being part-time and/or term-time employees who have the least financial capacity to absorb a change in pay frequency.

3. The Union contends that payment of a double week's pay on implementation would assist in resolution of the matter or, alternatively compensation should be paid for the significant inconvenience imposed. 

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The College states that there is a requirement for staff to move to a more efficient and effective pay frequency under public service agreements and considers that staff failure to agree to do so breaches that requirement.

2.The College says they have sought the Union to engage with their members to determine their preferred pay frequency, fortnightly or monthly but no response was received.

3.The College states that it has been reasonable and fair in addressing all concerns raised by staff and the Union in relation to a move to a fortnightly pay frequency and believes that the Union / staff side are being unreasonable.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The parties clarified to the Court that, notwithstanding the dispute resolution provisions of the Building Momentum collective agreement, it has been agreed as part of the Education Sector sectoral plan that disputes which were in process prior to the conclusion of the Building Momentum agreement would continue to be processed through the statutory dispute resolution framework. They further clarified that the dispute before the Court had been in process prior to the conclusion of the Building Momentum agreement and that they had jointly agreed to accept the Court’s recommendation in the matter.

The matter before the Court relates to a proposal to change the pay interval of approximately 450 workers to a fortnightly frequency from a weekly frequency. The matter arises in the context of the introduction of a shared service model in the Education Sector and the public service generally. Matters in relation to this development have been addressed in public service pay agreement where, in the Public Service Stability Agreement 2018 to 2020 at clause 2.9 the following was agreed:

2.9. Standardisation of Payroll Arrangements

• 2.9.1. The parties note the public service move to National Shared Service Centres for

  sectoral and back office functions in general and payroll services in particular. In

  this regard, the standardisation of pay roll operations has the potential to maximise

  efficiencies and economies of scale across the public service. However, the parties

  are agreed there is an ongoing need to balance efficiencies from standardisation

  of pay roll functions with the reasonable needs of employees in relation to the

  payment of wages on a consistent basis at a mutually agreed pay interval.

No submission was made to the Court that in any case in the Education Sector or elsewhere in the public service was compensation paid to staff whose pay interval changed from weekly to fortnightly pay.

The Trade Union side did not reject the principle of a move to fortnightly pay but did seek compensation to be paid or alternatively to ensure that a double week’s pay should be made at the point of transition.

The employer rejected the proposition that compensation should be paid and submitted that payment of a double week’s pay on the point of transition would be administratively challenging to the degree that fair and effective operation of the payroll system would be difficult to guarantee. The employer offered a transition loan payment to be paid back by way of payroll deduction over a long period but completing within the tax year in order to eliminate any possible tax penalty falling upon the worker concerned.

In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the Trade Union side should agree to a change from weekly to fortnightly pay. The employer should make every effort to minimise inconvenience caused to staff making that change. In particular, the change should happen as early as possible in the next tax year and a transitional loan payment of five days pay should be made to the staff concerned upon transition. That loan should, following a short transition period, be repaid by means of payroll deduction spread out over the entirety of the tax year.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
TH	______________________
20 December 2021	Chairman