SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
Chairman: Ms O'Donnell
Employer Member: Ms Connolly
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
1. Compensation for loss of Earnings
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 11 March 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 May 2019.
3. 1. Union members were subjected to cuts which were similar to the Public Service.
2. There is a savings for the Employer by having a private security company performing the work traditionally performed by F�rsa members.
3. The formula of 6 months the loss of earnings does not adequately compensate F�rsa members.
4. 1. The Employer is not covered by public service agreements and therefore the pubic service agreement of March 2011 in relation to compensation for loss of earnings is not relevant.
2. The Employer is responsible for raising most of its own funds and therefore it will not be funded by the public sector for this type of claim.
3. The Employer has implemented in full what was agreed with F�rsa following conciliation in July 2018.
The dispute between the parties relates to an agreement under the auspices of the WRC where the Employer agreed to “make every effort towards seeking the additional funds from the relevant funding agent towards meeting the Union’s compensation formula, i.e. public sector compensation norm”.This agreement also included an agreement to pay 6 months compensation as a part payment and this was done. It is the Unions case that management are now refusing to pay the balance of the compensation due. The Union drew the Court’s attention to a letter from the HR Director to the funding agency where the Director states that the Employer maintains that the staff are not entitled to the loss claimed. It is the Unions position that this was contrary to what was agreed at conciliation. The Union are seeking that the outstanding element of the compensation be paid.
It is the Employer’s position that as a section 39 funded agency they are not covered by the Public Service agreements and therefore are not obliged to apply the 1.5 times the loss formula. The Employer is seeking to rely on an agreement they did previously for two individuals. The Employer did not dispute that the letters to those two individuals in 2014 clearly stated that the decision was given in confidence and was to remain confidential. The Employer does not dispute that at conciliation it accepted in principle the Union’s claim for 1.5 times the loss. The Employer was unable to identify for the Court any cases where the Court either in the Public sector or the Private sector had awarded anything less than 1.5 times the loss.
The Court having carefully considered the submissions of the parties recommends the payment of 1.5 times the loss. Noting that .5 times the loss has already been paid the Court recommends that the balance outstanding is now paid.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27 May 2019Deputy Chairman
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.