Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89536 Case Number: LCR12501 Section / Act: S67 Parties: AN POST - and - POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute at the Company's Central Sorting Office.
Recommendation:
In its examination of all the documentation and submissions,
oral and written, made to it, the Court has come to the view that
the Union's interpretation of one selected part of the mediator's
recommendation of 7th March, 1989 is literally correct. That
literal interpretation appears however to be quite contrary to the
constructive spirit in which the mediator put forward his entire
recommendations.
Taken in isolation, the 2nd sentence of paragraph 8 of the
mediator's recommendation would justify the Union's contention
that county sorting should cease on 24th July because the issue
had not been resolved at that time. But the Court considers that
the extraction of one sentence from the context of the complete
paragraph in which it was placed, distorts the intent of the
mediator.
The mediator stated that he recommended the introduction of
"County Sorting" because he accepted the accountability of
Management for running the Post Office and it is the view of the
Court that it was not his intention to time-limit "County Sorting"
to three months. The Court believes that the time-scale of three
months was introduced for two purposes - (a) to allow a review of
the day to day operation of "County Sorting" and the smoothing of
any difficulties encountered by either side and (b) to allow the
parties to iron out any remaining industrial relations concerns
under the procedures envisaged in the Productivity Agreement. In
regard to (b), the mediator assumed that the industrial relations
procedures would be put in place rapidly but to-date they have not
been agreed. As a result, the mediator's objective of
pressurising the parties to resolve peripheral issues within a
three months period was not attained. The Court's view on the
purpose of the three month stipulation is strenghtened by the
mediator's directive to the Company to give the Sorter Grade
written guarantees concerning pay and status resulting from
"County Sorting."
In the Court's view, this reading of the mediator's recommendation
does not conflict with the substance of the mediator's letter of
clarification of 31st July. In the circumstances, the Court
believes that "County Sorting" as it operated from 24th April
should be re-introduced as the best way forward in the interests
of all parties affected by the present impasse.
From its experience, the Court is aware that legalistic
interpretations of agreements, such as in this case, are of
questionable long-term value in resolving industrial disputes.
Therefore, without prejudice to the position of either party and
as a practical way forward in line with the mediator's complete
recommendations, the Court recommends as follows:-
- that "County Sorting" be re-introduced without further
delay,
- that following the re-introduction of "County Sorting,"
the Company submit to the Union their entire proposals
for Module 2 of the Partnership for Progress,
- that "County Sorting" be specifically included as an item
in the proposals for Module 2,
- that the Industrial Relations procedures proposed under
the Chairmanship of Mr. Hugh McNeill be agreed and
finalised as a matter of urgency.
- that Module 2 negotiations be brought to finality
expeditiously with, where necessary, the use of the
Procedures available under the Partnership for Progress
Agreement.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr Collins Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89536 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12501
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: AN POST
and
POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute at the Company's Central Sorting Office.
BACKGROUND:
2. In April, 1987, An Post and the Union concluded an Agreement
under the Conciliation and Arbitration Scheme entitled Partnership
for Progress - Development of the Postal Service, 1987-1992. The
main purpose of the Agreement was to provide for self-financing
pay increases and to allow changes necessary for the modernisation
of An Post to take place by agreement. In order to finance the
pay element of the Agreement staff numbers were reduced through
early retirement and voluntary severance.
The quality of the letter mail service remained unsatisfactory and
in January, 1989, Management put forward a number of proposals
aimed at improving this situation. Included was a proposal to
change sorting arrangements by the introduction of "county
sorting." Mail received in the Central Sorting Office is
subjected to what is known as primary and secondary sorting.
Primary sorting is an initial breakdown into different regions of
the country. Secondary sorting is a further sub-division of this
mail. Formerly it was sorted to circulate on principle towns but
now a section of it is sorted on a county basis only. Where in
the past, mail was sorted to for example Limerick, Clare and
Kerry, it is now sorted only to Limerick with the remaining sub
division being left to provincial staff in Limerick.
3. The Union was opposed to the introduction of "county sorting"
and following the failure of local discussion, it was agreed to
refer the matter to mediation. On the 7th March, 1989, the
mediator issued his recommendation which stated inter alia that:
"Because, as I see it, Management, in the last resort, must be
"accountable" for the running of the Post Office, I feel
compelled to recommend that their proposals be operated with
good will for a period of three months, at which time they
must be jointly reviewed. The "County Sorting" element must
lapse at that time unless the dispute on that issue has been
resolved in the meantime. Furthermore, Management must have
the question of "County Sorting" monitored for productivity
purposes in accordance with the Productivity Agreement and,
finally, Management must give a written guarantee to the
Union that these arrangements will not be used to the
detriment of the Sorter Grade, in regard to pay or status.
Furthermore, I recommend that the parties commence now to
process their current differences through the procedures
envisaged in the Productivity Agreement."
The Union reluctantly accepted the recommendation and county
sorting came into operation on the 24th April (in 5 counties
only). However, as no agreement on the issue had been reached by
July, 24th (3 months after it was introduced) county sorting ended
on that date. The claimants refused to operate the new
arrangements and An Post refused to revert to the old system. As
a result a large backlog of mail built up in the Central Sorting
Office. As the parties could not agree terms on which to refer
the matter back to the mediator, the Union did so unilaterally,
asking whether he considered the Union's position to be correct.
Following discussions with both sides, the mediator replied on the
31st July, stating inter alia that:
"On rereading my recommendation, it seems fair to say that
your members could scarcely have taken any other meaning from
it than what they did and, within their lights, they would
therefore appear to have acted correctly.
However, I would like to point out that it is always
dangerous to deal with one part of any recommendation in
isolation as, taken out of context, a lone statement can take
onto itself a completely different meaning to what was
intended in the recommendation as a whole.
For instance, other points made in the recommendation should
not be forgotten, i.e.: were the proposals operated with
"good will", was the county sorting monitored for
productivity calculations, and did the parties commence to
process their differences immediately? The latter point is
important as the whole purpose of the three months time limit
was to give the parties a reasonable time to resolve the
problems by whatever means were available to them."
4. Following continued deadlock in the dispute and with mail
continuing to build up in the Central Sorting Office, the Labour
Court intervened on the 31st July, and invited both sides to
attend a conciliation conference. A conference on the 1st August
failed to resolve the dispute and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. Following
hearings on the 2nd and 4th August, the Court issued its
recommendation (detailed at 7 below) to the parties on the 4th
August, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The mediator's recommendation was very unpalatable from
the Union's viewpoint because it had the effect for this
particular case of setting aside the provisions of the
"Partnership for Progress" Agreement in relation to the
requirement to agree the introduction of operational changes
with the Union. In particular the Union resented the decision
of the Mediator to give more weight to the Company's argument
in circumstances where he admitted that he could not judge the
merits of the respective cases.
2. Any permanent introduction of county sorting can only take
place in the context of a conclusion of the outstanding
aspects of the "Partnership for Progress" Agreement and in
particular the clause of that Agreement relating to Grade
Restructuring. The reason for this approach is that the
introduction of county sorting involves devolution of work
from the postal sorter to the postman grade and Paragraph 5.7
of the Agreement is specific on this point:
"The Company shares the Union's interest in a realignment
of existing grading structures. The Company believes
that there is significant scope for restructuring Post
Office Clerks and certain other grades. In the Company's
view this is most likely to happen following discussions
with other staff organisations. Re-allocation of work
and restructuring of grades throughout the Company can
only be properly dealt with in that wider context.
Restructuring of grades and the creation of differentials
must be financed by savings. In view of its importance
to the well-being of An Post and its employees it will be
tackled as a matter of urgency. "
This view was conveyed to Management verbally by the General
Secretary on a number of occasions and in writing on 11th May,
1989. The present position on grade restructuring is that the
Company is preparing proposals but will not be able to present
them for some time. The second module of the Productivity
Agreement was scheduled for introduction nationally on 1st
August, 1988. Now, exactly one year after the scheduled date
there are still no Management proposals available for
consideration, let alone agreement, in Dublin.
3. Sorting of mail is carried out by both postmen and postal
sorters. The postal sorters are however a more specialised,
more highly paid category of worker who have on in-depth
knowledge of postal circulation. The adverse effects of
county sorting for them are twofold. Firstly it deskills
their job by exporting the detailed secondary sorting from
Dublin to the provinces and secondly it transfers work from
one grade to another in that a substantial part of the
decentralised work will be done by postmen/women at a lower
rate of pay. Postal sorters fear that this element of county
sorting is the thin end of a wedge which will lead to the
ultimate demise of their grade.
4. While the Mediator recommended that the Company's
proposals should be operated with goodwill for three months
and then jointly reviewed he was even more specific about the
county sorting element of which he said "Must lapse at that
time unless the dispute on that issue has been resolved in the
meantime." By virtue of his letter of 31st July, issued at
the request of the Union, the Mediator has confirmed the
specific intent of his recommendation and confirmed that the
Union's interpretation of it is correct.
5. The Union is anxious that the Court should have regard to
the need to uphold the Transitional Scheme of Conciliation and
Arbitration in An Post which is the collective bargaining
machinery retained following the separation of the two
semi-state companies from the Civil Service in 1984. The
rights of employees to have their conditions negotiated
through the C & A Scheme is protected by Section 45 of the
Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1984. The
Mediation Committee is an integral part of the conciliation
and arbitration machinery and it is important that its
findings should be upheld by the Court in this case.
6. Until September, 1988 there were no serious quality of
service problems. What gave rise to the deterioration after
that was the introduction of a new operational sorting plan
for the Central Sorting Office and the release of too many
staff on voluntary redundancy and early retirement schemes.
This point has been publicly admitted by the Company. Thus it
is important that the Court should not succumb to any
misapprehension that the present problem is due to the
workforce opposing Management attempts to bring the Post
Office into the 21st Century.
7. The emergency plan, introduced for three months, has
probably restored the quality of service to its pre-September
status to some degree. However, this is principally due to
the return of District Office Postmen to evening working in
the C.S.O. (a practice eliminated in the September, 1988
reorganisation) and the introduction of three additional
District Mails Processing Offices. Prior to the emergency
plan the District Offices processed approximately 600.000
items' of mail per week, now the figure is in excess of one
million. In addition to this 60 staff attend for 4 hours each
evening in the C.S.O.
8. The only reliable barometer of whether county sorting is
an improvement or a disimprovement would be a survey of mail
posted into the five affected counties. All the indictors
available to the Union through its members on the ground
suggest that county sorting is a disimprovement. Either way,
the fact is that it only has a marginal impact on quality of
service and does not justify the setting aside of the
Mediator's recommendation. Accordingly, the Court is
requested to recommend that the Mediator's recommendation of
the 7th March should be upheld by An Post and that county
sorting should lapse as required by that recommendation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The introduction of the new arrangements including county
sorting has not affected the scheduling of duties, pay or
overtime of the staff concerned - indeed the staff are unable
to take advantage of all the overtime available to them
(details supplied to the Court). Furthermore, as recommended
by the Mediator, the Company gave a written undertaking to the
Union as follows:
(i) "that the proposed reduction of secondary sorting
will not be used by the Company in any future
determination of the pay of the Postal Sorter
grade."
(ii) "that the Company is prepared to quantify the impact
of the proposed changes on the Postal Sorter grade
and to allow the quantification agreed to form part
of the Postal Sorters' contribution to Module 2
under the terms of the Productivity Agreement."
2. The Productivity Agreement requires that duty revisions
which are the subject of local negotiations in any particular
catchment area, in the context of productivity pay bargaining,
must be agreed. This cannot possibly be construed as giving
the Union a veto on all change in all circumstances. The
central plank of the Union's argument in this case is that,
under the terms of the Partnership for Progress Productivity
Agreement, changes of apparently any kind, can only be
introduced by agreement with the Union. This is a claim that
the Union has a veto on change under the terms of the
Productivity Agreement.
3. The Productivity Agreement is the outcome of collective
bargaining aimed at addressing the legitimate bargaining
aspirations of the Union, essentially a claim for more pay.
It does not, and was never intended to, govern all development
in, and the day to day operations of, An Post. For instance
operational changes, and consequential duty revisions, had to
be introduced in the Central Sorting Office recently as a
result of change by the British Post Office in regard to the
way in which mail going between the two countries would be
sorted in future.
4. Section 3 (paragraph 6) of the Productivity Agreement
commits the parties to "acceptance of change" and in
particular commits the parties to measures to achieve:
- efficient work practices
- maintain and improve service reliability and continuity
- progress proposals for change quickly and constructively
It was never the intention that the Productivity Agreement
would stand in the way of the discharge of fundamental
management responsibilities related to business needs. It is
necessary that the Company's position on this issue should be
clarified beyond any possibility of doubt or ambiguity. The
agreement cannot be construed as conferring a veto on change
on the Union. It is set out specifically in Section 1,
paragraph 2, of the Partnership for Progress Agreement that
"as a commercial public sector organisation An Post's duties
and responsibilities, operational and financial, are set out
in the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983."
Board and Management must discharge their duties and they
would have no choice but to terminate the Productivity
Agreement if it were to be construed as debarring them from or
inhibiting them in the discharge of their responsibilities.
5. Operational change is essential from time to time to
respond to business and customer requirements. Work volumes
may change, either in total or as distributed throughout the
day, new services may be introduced or existing services
curtailed, ceased or lost. Transport services may change and
consequential operational changes may be necessary. None of
these are related to or derive from the collective bargaining
process. It is essential to distinguish between operational
change arising from business needs and those proposed in a
collective bargaining context.
6. The Board determines quality of service standards to which
the Company must operate. Thereafter it is the duty of
Management to make operational arrangements, and to deploy
staff, in such a way as to achieve those quality of service
objectives. The situation faced by the Company in late 1988
and early 1989 was, essentially, a failure to achieve the
Board's quality of service standards. In effect there was a
national quality of service crisis resulting from a late
evening bottleneck in the Central Sorting Office. Substantial
volumes of mail which were due to leave Dublin in "night mail"
dispatches were missing train and truck connections. There is
no dispute between the parties that letters received in the
Central Sorting Office at certain times and from certain
collections should connect with the night mail dispatches.
Neither was there any disagreement about the need to introduce
measures aimed a ensuring that all letters due to connect with
the night mail dispatches should go on those dispatches. The
differences related to particular measures. Management is
held accountable, and rightly so, for quality of service.
Indeed the Union shares this view, even when particular
(defective) operational arrangements are put in place in
agreement with the Union. This leads to the inescapable
conclusion that Management, subject to appropriate
consultation, must have the final, decisive voice in choosing
the operational arrangements which are necessary to achieve
quality of service standards.
7. The Union has opposed the new sorting arrangements because
it sees them as deskilling the job of the postal sorter and
having long term implications for the future of the grade.
The limited changes made and the assurances given as set out
in paragraph 6.1 above fully answers the Union's objections
and consequently these objections do not provide any
reasonable grounds to dismantle the present arrangements and
to actually reduce the quality of service to the customers.
There has been no reduction in the volume of work handled by
members of the Union. What has happened is that certain
sorting work has been transferred out of the Central Sorting
Office in Dublin to sorting centres in the counties concerned.
There it is sorted by members of the Union, in certain cases
by a grade higher than postal sorter (Post Office Clerk).
There has been a transfer of work between sorting locations.
It was done solely in the interests of efficiency and quality
of service to the customer.
8. The Mediator gave the parties time to sort out their
differences through procedures. Three months was sufficient
but the Union refused to process the issue through the
procedures envisaged in the Productivity Agreement. The new
arrangements introduced on 24th April, 1989 are essential to
the provision of a satisfactory quality of service to the
customer. In all the circumstances, the Court is asked to
recommend that the revised operational arrangements which were
introduced on that date should remain in force subject to
their being reckonable as appropriate for productivity payment
purposes and on the understanding that they will not and
cannot be used to the detriment of the postal sorter grade in
respect of their pay, status or conditions of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. In its examination of all the documentation and submissions,
oral and written, made to it, the Court has come to the view that
the Union's interpretation of one selected part of the mediator's
recommendation of 7th March, 1989 is literally correct. That
literal interpretation appears however to be quite contrary to the
constructive spirit in which the mediator put forward his entire
recommendations.
Taken in isolation, the 2nd sentence of paragraph 8 of the
mediator's recommendation would justify the Union's contention
that county sorting should cease on 24th July because the issue
had not been resolved at that time. But the Court considers that
the extraction of one sentence from the context of the complete
paragraph in which it was placed, distorts the intent of the
mediator.
The mediator stated that he recommended the introduction of
"County Sorting" because he accepted the accountability of
Management for running the Post Office and it is the view of the
Court that it was not his intention to time-limit "County Sorting"
to three months. The Court believes that the time-scale of three
months was introduced for two purposes - (a) to allow a review of
the day to day operation of "County Sorting" and the smoothing of
any difficulties encountered by either side and (b) to allow the
parties to iron out any remaining industrial relations concerns
under the procedures envisaged in the Productivity Agreement. In
regard to (b), the mediator assumed that the industrial relations
procedures would be put in place rapidly but to-date they have not
been agreed. As a result, the mediator's objective of
pressurising the parties to resolve peripheral issues within a
three months period was not attained. The Court's view on the
purpose of the three month stipulation is strenghtened by the
mediator's directive to the Company to give the Sorter Grade
written guarantees concerning pay and status resulting from
"County Sorting."
In the Court's view, this reading of the mediator's recommendation
does not conflict with the substance of the mediator's letter of
clarification of 31st July. In the circumstances, the Court
believes that "County Sorting" as it operated from 24th April
should be re-introduced as the best way forward in the interests
of all parties affected by the present impasse.
From its experience, the Court is aware that legalistic
interpretations of agreements, such as in this case, are of
questionable long-term value in resolving industrial disputes.
Therefore, without prejudice to the position of either party and
as a practical way forward in line with the mediator's complete
recommendations, the Court recommends as follows:-
- that "County Sorting" be re-introduced without further
delay,
- that following the re-introduction of "County Sorting,"
the Company submit to the Union their entire proposals
for Module 2 of the Partnership for Progress,
- that "County Sorting" be specifically included as an item
in the proposals for Module 2,
- that the Industrial Relations procedures proposed under
the Chairmanship of Mr. Hugh McNeill be agreed and
finalised as a matter of urgency.
- that Module 2 negotiations be brought to finality
expeditiously with, where necessary, the use of the
Procedures available under the Partnership for Progress
Agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
_________________________
23rd October, 1989. Chairman
D.H./J.C.