Employers' group Ibec has criticised what it described as "unhelpful" suggestions by the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) that the Lansdowne Road deal on public- service pay could be revisited in certain cases. It told members in a bulletin that the comments went "beyond the remit of that organisation".
Ibec also said it was "deeply concerned at some of the draconian proposals" to change employment law set out in a report to Government in the wake of the closure of Clerys department store in Dublin last year.
It also said the decision by Luas staff to reject proposals drawn up at the WRC to resolve a long-running pay dispute “suggests a mindset detached from economic realities”.
Ibec said arguments put forward by trade unions for the Lansdowne Road pay deal to be renegotiated did not stack up. “Claims that entry-level pay in some professions is causing recruitment problems have been dismissed by Government,” it said.
Lessons of crisis
It added that the suggestion that wages should be increased to make property more affordable suggested one of the most obvious lessons of the crisis had not been learned.
“Around €900 million has been allocated to pay for the Lansdowne Road deal and the agreement should run its full course. Reallocating limited resources to provide for even higher pay rises would be a mistake, and would mean less money for health, education and capital projects.
“Suggestions from the Workplace Relations Commission that parts of the pay deal could be revisited are very unhelpful and go beyond the remit of that organisation.”
Croke Park deal
The statement is understood to refer to comments made by WRC director general
Kieran Mulvey
last week that the accord may have to be “revisited” if gardaí, teachers or nurses cannot be recruited because of pay.
Mr Mulvey said yesterday Ibec had not been a party to the deal. He said he had chaired the talks that had led to the agreement that led to the Croke Park, Haddington Road and Lansdowne Road accords.
The employers’ lobby group said the Clerys case had prompted “understandable distress and anger” but that the particular scenario that arose there was incredibly rare and did not provide a reasonable basis on which to base employment legislation applicable to all employers.
