Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a number of questions. Most of the witnesses will be aware of my trade union involvement prior to being elected.

Was Ms Cody involved in instructing the section 39 organisations to cut pay? When the cut was imposed, was it the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that advised the Department of Health to pass it on? I am trying to figure out where the cuts started from?

I am looking at Labour Court recommendations - indeed I was at the Labour Court on similar cases and we really never seem to get to the bottom of who was issuing the instruction, except that an instruction had been issued. The section 39 organisations were very clear that they were not given any option other than to cut pay. For the benefit of this committee, it would be very helpful if we knew where that instruction was coming from? One gets the general feeling that it was coming from upstairs, but we want to know the exact room it was coming from? Perhaps Ms Cody might be able to explain that to us.

We understand that the HSE has allocated an amount of €68 million for what is called pay movement. Does that include pay restoration in any way, shape or form for the section 39 organisations, and if it does, does it also include a reference to incremental credit, because that is an issue that we need to be cognisant of? I am looking at the Labour Court recommendation 21.630 which relates to County Wexford Community Workshop, in which explicit reference is made to the public service pay cuts and the consequent pay adjustment, which is the nice word, we were putting on it at the time, when pay was only going in one direction, that the pay adjustment and all the other factors such as incremental freeze that apply were going to have to apply in the case of the workers in the Wexford community workshop. I think the Labour Court was fairly clear in its recommendations in December 2017 and recommended that the parties should jointly approach the HSE to secure the resources necessary to meet the cost of this recommendation.

In the event that they do approach the HSE and I am sure they have, what is the answer to that? Is the answer "No" or is it "Let's all get together and go to DPER." Will Ms Cody explain that to us?

Likewise, the Labour Court recommendation 21.609 for the Irish Wheelchair Association. The court is very clear on this. It states that the Labour Court has some sympathy for the difficulties that the employer but they cannot accept that they are the basis for not implementing pay restoration in line with the public service agreement. It appears to the court that one of the reasons this matter is before us is because the employer feels obliged to do so in order to satisfy an administrative requirement of the HSE, which is its main funder rather than to seek a resolution.

We used to refer to this as "simply getting a harp on it". That is bad practice. I am not as well connected to people in the court as I once was but I understand there is a path worn to the door of the Labour Court and Workplace Relations Commission by these agencies. The same answer is being issued every time. The Labour Court recommendation from November 2017 — I believe the chairman was Ms Louise O'Donnell — is very clear that the court is actually somewhat exasperated over what is occurring. The delegates might explain the administrative requirement. What I am taking from the recommendation is that the workers and their representatives are going to the Labour Court to satisfy an administrative requirement placed on them by the HSE in order that they might be able to secure some funding to meet what is essentially a very legitimate claim, namely, for pay restoration. I have not heard anyone contradict this. Certainly, the pay was cut in line with FEMPI. As public servants see some form of pay restoration, there is none happening in the section 39 agencies. The delegates might advise us on the administrative requirement. It appears to the court that this requirement is in place. If what I contend is the case, I would like to hear the justification for it. It sounds like an absolute waste of the Labour Court's time. As someone who would have waited for months to get a case into the Labour Court, I believe bringing cases to that court simply to satisfy an administrative requirement is not justified.

The delegates might explain the role of the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform in this. Is it that Department that is requiring this administrative exercise - the effective rubber-stamping of the claim? Clearly, the claim is justified. The court sees no difficulty with the claim. It is merely the mechanism by which the claim is settled that is in question.