Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD8761 Case Number: LCR11472 Section / Act: S67 Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN - and - AUEW(TASS);ITGWU |
Claim for the continuation of a comprehensive/flexibility scheme on behalf of approximately 120 workers.
Recommendation:
8. The Court has considered the arguments made by the parties in
this case. The central point at issue arises from the method of
payment for certain elements in the Agreement which the Unions
regard as ongoing and therefore warranting payment by means of a
salary increase. Management on the other hand proposes payment in
the form of lump sums subject to the achievement of certain
targets.
The Court has come to the conclusion that in the present economic
climate in an industry such as B.G.E. open to competition and
needing to adopt to changes in the marketplace, flexibility of
working, transferability, and a willingness to introduce and adapt
to changes in technology as they arise are essential
characteristics of work in such an enterprise to ensure its future
and the future of those employed therein.
The Court notes that in this case the full co-operation of the
workforce in this fashion will be necessary if the stipulated
targets are to be achieved but in light of the above does not
accept that there is current validity in the Unions argument for
ongoing payments in the Agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that the employers offer be
accepted in respect of the proposed Agreement for 1987-88.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Heffernan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD8761 THE LABOUR COURT LCR11472
CC861928 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR11472
Parties: BORD GAIS EIREANN
and
AMALGAMATED UNION OF ENGINEERING WORKERS (TASS)
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING UNION
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
Subject:
1. Claim for the continuation of a comprehensive/flexibility
scheme on behalf of approximately 120 workers.
Background:
2. In 1982 Bord Gais Eireann and the Bord Gais Eireann Group of
Unions negotiated a 3 year development/flexibility agreement. The
agreement provided for salary increases in return for acceptance
of new technology, flexibility, etc. and a lump sum payment in
respect of the "no strike/binding arbitration" provisions of the
agreement. Shortly after the agreement expired both parties
entered into discussions on the introduction of a new 2 year
comprehensive agreement to come into effect after the original
agreement had expired. The Company indicated that they would be
prepared to enter into another agreement which would contain the
same general provisions i.e. adherence to procedures, binding
arbitration, agreement on demarcation procedures as applied in the
original agreement in return for lump sum payments which would be
performance related. The Unions sought provision in the agreement
for salary increases.
3. In the meantime the Labour Court issued Labour Court
Recommendation No. 10121 in connection with the 25th wage round.
Arising from the Unions' misgivings the Court issued the following
clarification:
"The Court accepts that the conditions attached in
recommendation No. 10121 to the 25th wage round
increase do not preclude any subject coming within the
range and scope of negotiations on a new
development/flexibility/incentive agreement".
4. As a result the parties re-entered into discussions on the
introduction of a new agreement. At a meeting held on 3rd
September, 1986, the Company put forward proposals (details
supplied to the Court). At a further meeting held on 13th
November, 1986, the Unions advised that the proposals were
unacceptable as there was no provision for salary increases. The
matter was referred to the conciliation service of the Labour
Court on 19th November, 1986. A conciliation conference was held
on 22nd January, 1987. As no agreement was possible both parties
agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. A Court hearing was held in Cork on 19th March,
1987.
5. The hearing was adjourned to allow the Court which issued the
recommendation on the 25th wage round and subsequent clarification
to be reconvened. A further hearing with the Court was held on
23rd April, 1987. The Court allowed 60 days during which the
parties would endeavour to reach agreement. A meeting between the
parties was held on 15th May, 1987 at which the Company put
forward its original offer with an amendment on the clause
regarding binding arbitration (details supplied to the Court).
The Unions claim that compensation for the introduction of
agreement should include an element of salary increase remained
unaltered. Another Court hearing was held in Cork on 15th
September, 1987.
Unions' arguments:
6. (a) The Company suggestion, if adopted, would mean that all
unions would be committed to the following with no
guarantee of any payment as no payments would be made
if targets were not met:-
1 Procedures
2 Industrial peace
3 All changes including development and flexibility
4 New technology
5 Transferability
6 Mobility
7 Revised structures
8 Re-organisation
9 Acceptance of consultants
10 Employment of temporary and agency staff
11 No demarcation
(b) Many of the above points are ongoing, e.g. flexibility,
new technology, transferability, mobility, new
structures and re-organisation, and therefore demand an
ongoing payment. It would be unjust to expect workers
to accept a lump sum payment for a defined period while
at the same time expecting to get benefits which would
last forever.
(c) There are obviously productivity requirements which do
justify lump sum payments and the traditional method of
paying for these would be a weekly bonus, a monthly
bonus, a quarterly bonus or a yearly bonus. At the end
of that agreement these bonuses are re-negotiated.
(d) The Company suggestion has two elements in it - one is
for an ongoing element, the second is for productivity.
These two separate and distinct requirements cannot be
met by a similar payment. We ask the Court to
recommend, therefore, that the lump sum payment should
relate only to productivity and that 3% be put on the
scales to compensate for ongoing elements.
Company's arguments:
7. (i) Ongoing improvement in productivity is necessary for
competitiveness, efficiency, protection of employment
both in the Company and its subsidiaries. The
Company's revenue and profits for 1987 will be
drastically reduced because of the fall in energy
prices and the necessity to fund the losses of Dublin
Gas Company.
(ii) The workers concerned continue to enjoy the salary
increase paid under the original development
flexibility agreement.
(iii) To pay a salary increase for new technology and a lump
sum payment for achievement of target performance would
amount to double payment as the use of new technology
is necessary to achieving the target levels as would
adherence to procedures and industrial peace.
Concession of the Unions' claim for salary increases
would have major repercussive effects both in the
public sector and the related private sector.
(iv) The Governments policy on pay and conditions in the
public sector preclude any salary increase over and
above the terms of the 26th wage round.
(v) The Company would ask the Court to uphold its
contention that the terms of the proposed
development/flexibility/incentive bonus scheme and in
particular the compensation/reward provisions by means
of a lump sum are generous and realistic in the present
circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. The Court has considered the arguments made by the parties in
this case. The central point at issue arises from the method of
payment for certain elements in the Agreement which the Unions
regard as ongoing and therefore warranting payment by means of a
salary increase. Management on the other hand proposes payment in
the form of lump sums subject to the achievement of certain
targets.
The Court has come to the conclusion that in the present economic
climate in an industry such as B.G.E. open to competition and
needing to adopt to changes in the marketplace, flexibility of
working, transferability, and a willingness to introduce and adapt
to changes in technology as they arise are essential
characteristics of work in such an enterprise to ensure its future
and the future of those employed therein.
The Court notes that in this case the full co-operation of the
workforce in this fashion will be necessary if the stipulated
targets are to be achieved but in light of the above does not
accept that there is current validity in the Unions argument for
ongoing payments in the Agreement.
The Court therefore recommends that the employers offer be
accepted in respect of the proposed Agreement for 1987-88.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
______________________
Deputy Chairman
19th October, 1987.
M.D./J.C.