Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89233 Case Number: LCR12398 Section / Act: S67 Parties: THE LAW SOCIETY - and - IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION |
Dispute concerning negotiations on productivity matters.
Recommendation:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made on the various
issues and recommends as follows:
(a) The Court does not recommend the introduction of a bar in
the wage scale of new staff.
(b) The Court does not recommend any change be made in the
existing system of wage payment.
(c) The Court recommends that the long service increment
offered by the employer be accepted.
(d) The Court recommends that the employer should define the
nature and extent of the flexibility required of staff and
that the flexibility so defined should be accepted by
existing staff.
(e) Subject to acceptance of the above recommendation the
Court further recommends that the 2.50% increase be payable
with effect from 1st October, 1988.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89233 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12398
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: THE LAW SOCIETY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
and
IRISH DISTRIBUTIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRADE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning negotiations on productivity matters.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following lengthy negotiations in late 1987 and early 1988 the
parties reached agreement that the Law Society would grant a wage
increase of 2.50% effective from 1st February, 1988. A further 2.50%
would be payable subject to a number of productivity items being
agreed.
3. The Society raised a number of issues under the heading of
productivity as follows:
(a) Flexibility: The Society sought greater flexibility
among the staff which would enable greater movement to
take place between sections and departments. The
Union's position is that such flexibility should apply
to new staff only.
(b) Working hours: The working hours at present are 9.00
p.m. to 5.30 p.m. with an hour and twenty minutes for
lunch. The Society suggested that these be amended to
9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. with one hour for lunch and that
the fifteen minute afternoon tea-break be eliminated.
The Union agreed to this change.
(c) Payment of wages: The Society sought the introduction
of payment of wages by credit transfer to the employees
personnel bank account. The Union would not agree to
this change.
(d) The Society sought that in respect of new employees the
existing eleven point scale which runs to #249.41 per
week would only run to point 9 at a figure of #225.47
per week. Agreement was not reached on this issue.
(e) Long service increments: The Union sought a long
service increment of 5% to apply after 3 years on the
maximum of the scale. The Society offered a long
service increment of 3% to apply after five years on the
maximum point of the scale.
(f) Operative date of 2.50% increase: The Union are claiming
an operative date of 1st July, 1988, the Society
position being that it should apply on the date of
acceptance of a productivity agreement.
4. No agreement was reached on all the issues and the matter was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on the
2nd September, 1988. A conciliation conference was held on the
13th October, 1988. As no agreement was reached the Union sought
an adjournment to enable it consult with its members. The Union
subsequently informed the Society that a ballot had been taken on
industrial action, and a one day strike took place on 8th
December, 1988. In February, 1989 discussions resumed among the
parties and it was agreed to a referral to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. A Court hearing took place on
the 2nd May, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. A bar on the wage scale for new employees.
The Law Society proposed that new staff would only progress to
the 9th. point of the existing scale. Such a bar, is quite
unacceptable to the Union. There is little logic or justice
in negotiating wage increases which in turn, limit the extent
to which new employees can progress along an agreed wage
scale. The Union views such a proposal as undesirable in
social as well as trade union terms and will not be party to
an exercise in depressing wage rates for young workers of the
future.
2. Methods of payment of wages.
The Society sought to change the existing system of payment of
wages. Staff are now paid by cheque and are allowed time to
go to the bank to secure cash. The employer now requires its
workers to open bank accounts so that their wages can be
transferred directly into the private accounts. The workers
are not agreeable to any change in the system of payment and
they maintain that the Payment of Wages Act, gives them a
legal right to object.
3. The 3 productivity measures agreed are a fair response to
the Society's expectations and are a reasonable exchange for
the 2.5% offered. Particularly in view of the acceptance of
the 2.5% for the wage round proper. The Court is therefore,
asked to recommend payment of the agreed 2.5% payment in
return for the productivity items already accepted by the
workers concerned, (i.e. increased working hours and
flexibility for new staff). In relation to the remaining
items the Court is asked to recommend.
4. There is an element of flexibility among existing staff.
However, because of the workload and the specialised nature of
some of the duties, full interchangeability between
departments and sections is not possible.
5. Long service increment
A long service increment of 5% should be applied to staff who
are three years on the top point of the scale.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. Flexibility
It is not unreasonable for management to suggest that staff
move between departments and sections to enable the Society to
perform at maximum level of efficiency. The work pattern in
all areas is not of an even flow and the peaks and valleys
could be levelled out by the sort of flexibility sought by
management. For the Union to indicate a willingness for new
staff to give this sort of flexibility recognises that there
is a need for it.
2. Credit transfer
The Society is seeking a movement from weekly payment by
cheque (for which staff are given some time off to cash at
local banks) with a system of monthly credit transfer. The
latter will, to some degree, reduce administration costs and
does represent a safe and secure method of payment of salaries
to staff. Management also indicated that if the movement from
weekly to monthly payment created any individual difficulties,
that these could be addressed.
3. Reduction in the maximum of the scale:
What is now required is a reversion to the old scale structure
which applied a number of years ago. Two additional points
(points 10 and 11) were added as a result of a union claim in
respect of the introduction of new technology. The latter is
commonplace throughout many office employments nowadays
without justifying any additional payments whatever.
Accordingly, the Society is seeking that in respect of all new
staff the additional "technology payment" would no longer
apply and that the scale would finish at Point 9. It should
be stressed that this proposal will not detrimentally affect
the earnings or earning potential of any existing members of
staff.
4. Long service increment:
The Society does not see any justification for this increment
which has precisely the opposite result to that being sought
by the Society. Notwithstanding this however and in order to
reach agreement on the overall package it was proposed that an
additional increment with a value of 3% would apply to those
who are five years at the top of the scale.
5. Operative date:
The Society offered the date of 1st October, 1988 during
negotiations as it was envisaged that the entire package would
have been agreed and operational by that date. Because no
agreement has been reached the operative date should be the
date of acceptance of the productivity terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
7. The Court has considered the submissions made on the various
issues and recommends as follows:
(a) The Court does not recommend the introduction of a bar in
the wage scale of new staff.
(b) The Court does not recommend any change be made in the
existing system of wage payment.
(c) The Court recommends that the long service increment
offered by the employer be accepted.
(d) The Court recommends that the employer should define the
nature and extent of the flexibility required of staff and
that the flexibility so defined should be accepted by
existing staff.
(e) Subject to acceptance of the above recommendation the
Court further recommends that the 2.50% increase be payable
with effect from 1st October, 1988.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
________________________
17th May, 1989. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.