The Industrial Court has dismissed a complaint by the Public Services Association (PSA) about the alleged failure by the National Insurance Board to pay increased salaries at the conclusion of a collective agreement for the years 2014-2016.

The PSA applied for an order against the NIB claiming it committed an industrial relations offence. It said the NIB acted illegally and was not in conformity with the Industrial Relations Act.

In October 2020, the union and NIB signed and concluded negotiations for the collective agreement for January 2014-December 2016 for two classes of workers.

The NIB agreed to a nine per cent salary increase – three per cent each year – and a revised cost of living allowance from January 2014.

Payment of the revised rates was to begin by November 30, 2020, with increases in allowances, and there was also an agreement for retroactive payment to be paid before December 31, 2020.

Payment did not begin at the end of November 2020 and when workers asked for job letters, they were given information that showed their former/lower salaries. Retroactive payments were also not received.

At a meeting in January 2021, to discuss a revision of work hours at the NIB, because of changes to covid19 public health regulations at the time, the issue was raised by the union and the board said outstanding information had to be provided to the Minister of Finance. The Finance Ministry, as the line ministry for the NIB, has to approve its proposed expenditure budget.

In the ruling, vice president of the Industrial Court Herbert Soverall and members Patrick Rabathaly and Melvin Daniel noted that the NIB had genuinely believed it treated the union in good faith despite the Finance Ministry not approving its budget.

They said the NIB was entitled to enter into collective bargaining without reference to the ministry and would ultimately receive the approval for its budget.

The court referred to several exchanges between the NIB and the workers and the NIB and the ministry for the approval of its annual projected expenditure

It also referred to communication from the ministry to the NIB which expressed concern with the increase in salaries.

It said in March 2021, the ministry approved the NIB’s amended operational budget – which did not include the budget for the increased payments as the board believed it would receive that later on – but said the negotiation process did not appear to be in accordance with previously-issued guidance on the role of the inter-ministerial committee in relation to wage negotiations.

The ministry also said the collective agreement was not approved by it and had serious consequences for the Treasury.

The court further pointed out the NIB had responded to the ministry, asking for urgent approval for the expenditure committed to in the collective agreement.

The court said while the PSA would have proven non-payment, it also had to prove that the NIB did not want to pay.

In the decision, the court said the NIB kept staff informed throughout the entire process i