Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90100 Case Number: LCR12904 Section / Act: S67 Parties: MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union concerning the introduction of a productivity scheme for plant operators/drivers.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the evidence submitted in
relation to this claim for the introduction of negotiations aimed
at payment of a productivity bonus to the claimants.
Taking account of all the factors involved i.e. the terms of
previous Court Recommendations No. 10,319 and No. 10,669, together
with the terms of the revised Clause 3 of the Public Services Pay
Agreement under the Programme for National Recovery, and
notwithstanding the local agreement of 1979, the Court has come to
the view that Mayo County Council is not in a position to isolate
itself from the other Local Authorities involved with the Trade
Unions in the efforts to rationalise pay rates on a national basis
for the grades concerned. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of this particular claim.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90100 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12904
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: MAYO COUNTY COUNCIL
(Represented by the Local Government Staff Negotiations Board)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union concerning the introduction of a
productivity scheme for plant operators/drivers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claims that the Council's plant operators/drivers
are undertaking extra duties for which they should receive a
productivity bonus. Two years ago, as a result of a voluntary
redundancy scheme, over one hundred workers left the Council's
employment. This has resulted in the plant operators/drivers
having to keep extra records and some plant operators/drivers
having to do extra manual work. As a result of the plant
operators/drivers doing this extra work, the Council saves over
#130,000 per annum. In addition to this, the plant
operators/drivers made an agreement with the Council four years
ago concerning flexibility. As part of this agreement the Council
agreed to maintain its plant and lorry fleet numbers, invest in
plant with a view to replacing equipment on full-time hire and
endeavour to maintain the number of plant operators/drivers. The
Council has not lived up to its commitments. The lorry fleet has
been reduced in numbers, hire equipment has not been replaced and
plant operators/drivers numbers have been reduced from forty-three
to thirty-six. The Council has used the Agreement to generate
further savings with no return to the plant operators/drivers.
Given the extra work now being undertaken by the plant
operators/drivers, the Union believes that the Council should
enter negotiations with a view to negotiating a productivity
agreement. The Council has refused to negotiate on the matter
because rates of pay for all County Council workers have been
rationalised since the early 1980's. To concede the Union's claim
would be tantamount to introducing a seperate rate for this grade
in Mayo. As agreement could not be reached locally, the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Court on 27th
September, 1989. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 8th February, 1990, and on 15th February, 1990,
the matter was referred to the Labour Court for investigation and
recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 17th May,
1990, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As a result of developments over the last number of
years, the Council's plant operators/drivers have had a
dramatic increase in their work duties, including the keeping
of extra records e.g. material delivery dockets and log
sheets, bitumen requisitions and bitumen output reports. A
few years ago the Council employed staff to do this work. If
the Council reverted to the system operated in the past it
would cost over #130,000 per annum.
2. This claim does not involve a basic pay claim and does
not involve any external comparisons within the county or
outside. In 1978, the Council entered a productivity
agreement which provided for ongoing negotiations on
productivity. this claim is provided for in the 1978
Agreement. In that respect the Union contends that this claim
is a local matter between the plant operators/drivers and the
Council.
3. Clause 3.6 of the Agreement on Pay in the Public Service
states that:-
"it shall not be contrary to this Agreement for the
Government as employer and the unions to negotiate
the settlement of minor claims which are
particular to an individual employment and which
do not involve basic pay or require external
comparisons;"
The Union believes that this claim falls into the category
covered by Clause 3.6. In these circumstances the Union
requests the Court to recommend that the Council enter into
discussions with a view to concluding a productivity
agreement.
COUNCIL'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. For the last fifteen years the avowed aspiration of the
unions representing general operative related grades in Local
Authorities has been for uniform national rationalised rates.
To negotiate locally in relation to rates of pay is contrary
to the approach taken by the unions at national level.
2. The Union, in support of its claim, cites the reduction
in numbers employed by the Council. Mayo County Council is
not unique in this regard as all Local Authorities have had a
reduction in numbers over the last number of years. Local
Authorities were required to reduce their workforces because
of their dire financial situation.
4. 3. The Council is of the view that in Clause 3.6 of the
Agreement on Pay in the Public Service, the term individual
employment must be interpreted as referring to Local
Authorities nationally. In the context of seeking national
rates it would be wrong to have local negotiations in respect
of 10% of the general workers employed by one county council.
4. The Council contends that this claim is contrary to
previous recommendation of the Labour Court. Recommendation
No. 10,319 states:-
"The Court is also concerned at the way in which
the rationalisation of pay structures has been
undermined by having different rates for
determining pay increases and allowances for
different workers".
Labour Court Recommendation No. 10,669 states:-
"The Court still believes that in the long term the
overall pay problems of this group must be
resolved on a national basis with a fully
rationalised pay structure covering all general
workers employed by local authorities and health
boards".
In all the circumstances of this case the Council requests the
Court to reject the Union's claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the evidence submitted in
relation to this claim for the introduction of negotiations aimed
at payment of a productivity bonus to the claimants.
Taking account of all the factors involved i.e. the terms of
previous Court Recommendations No. 10,319 and No. 10,669, together
with the terms of the revised Clause 3 of the Public Services Pay
Agreement under the Programme for National Recovery, and
notwithstanding the local agreement of 1979, the Court has come to
the view that Mayo County Council is not in a position to isolate
itself from the other Local Authorities involved with the Trade
Unions in the efforts to rationalise pay rates on a national basis
for the grades concerned. The Court accordingly does not
recommend concession of this particular claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
7th June, 1990 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman