Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91230 Case Number: LCR13324 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NEW PMPA INSURANCE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute arising from the Company's proposals to change the shift pattern and remuneration for 18 clerical staff involved in the operation of Telecover.
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties in their
oral and written submissions finds as follows:
That the members should accept the Management proposals with
the following amendment: That the shift premium be reduced
to 12.50% of basic salary, the reduction to be phased in over a
three month period.
That as a gesture of good will the Company make a once off payment
of #1,500.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91230 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13324
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: NEW PMPA INSURANCE LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute arising from the Company's proposals to change the
shift pattern and remuneration for 18 clerical staff involved in
the operation of Telecover.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. In early 1988 the Company decided to introduce an
innovative method of telephone selling known as "Telecover".
Telecover is a computerised facility which enables staff to
give instant quotations to customers over the telephone.
Another feature of Telecover is that it can be made available
to customers outside normal office hours and on Saturdays.
With the introduction of Telecover in the Dublin City Branch
(DCB) agreement was reached on a 3 week shift pattern with a
20% premium attached. Staff who were selected for Telecover
also qualified for one additional increment on appointment.
The shift pattern is operated as follows:-
Week 1 - 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Week 2 - 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
Week 3 - 1 p.m. to 9 p.m.
Saturdays - 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.
The shift who work Saturdays (once every 3 weeks) qualify for
a day off in lieu.
2. From the outset Telecover operated successfully and
significant business was generated. Telecover was
subsequently extended to other branches throughout the
country. In early 1990 the Company became concerned that
there was a low level of business on Saturdays and after 6
p.m. on week days while Telecover staff had problems in
coping with business during the day time. In October, 1990
the Company made proposals to alter week 3 of the shift
roster to 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. and to cease Saturday attendance.
The company also proposed to reduce the 20% shift premium to
7.5% of basic pay and in addition offered a lump sum payment
of #800 per individual. The Union rejected these proposals.
No agreement was reached at local level and the matter was
referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court on
12th December, 1990. Conciliation conferences were held on
5th February, 1991 and 18th February, 1991 at which no
agreement was reached. On 30th April, 1991 the Labour
Relations Commission, having formed the view that no further
efforts on its part would resolve the dispute, referred it to
the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of
the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Labour Court
investigated the dispute on 22nd May, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When Telecover was introduced the Company interviewed
and specially selected those members of staff which it felt
were most suitable. The Company refused to upgrade those
staff although they had special status and had an extra
package of duties related to the new style of work e.g.
greater pressure of work, special telephone skills,
introduction of shift work, loss of promotional opportunity,
prompt decision-making etc. As compensation the Company
agreed to a 20% additional payment for the total package.
2. Although the 20% payment was called shift premium it was
in respect of a package and was accepted by the staff as
such. The elements of the package were not defined in
percentage terms and the payment was as much related to the
new style of work as it was to the introduction of a shift
pattern.
3. The Company's reason for proposing a change in the 1
p.m. to 9 p.m. shift to a 7 p.m. finish is not apparent to
the Union. No factual analysis of calls/transactions has
been undertaken and there is no management presence during
the hours 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. to make any firm conclusions. The
Union can only assume there is another reason which it has
not yet been made aware of.
4. The issue has been deliberately confused by the Company
as it has homed in on the shift-pattern part of the package
to the exclusion of the other factors which warranted the 20%
payment. When the 20% payment was agreed the Company had
major financial problems and it is impossible to believe that
it would be generous in the extreme in respect of shift rates
alone. The Company is now trying to renege on an agreement
freely entered into. The Union is willing to make logical
changes to Telecover but the agreement must remain until an
agreed alternative package is negotiated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. When the Company introduced Telecover it was not clear
if such an innovation would succeed in Ireland. The Company
based the shift pattern on the United Kingdom experience
where after normal hours and Saturday telephone selling had
proved successful. Because of the uncertainty of the
viability of Telecover in Ireland the Company advised the
Union of the possibility of subsequent modification.
2. Before the introduction of Telecover in May 1988 the
parties agreed terms and conditions. The Telecover agreement
specifically refers to the premium of 20% on basic pay as
"shift premium". In addition staff were awarded a salary
increment which would be permanent.
3. Telecover operated successfully from the outset and was
extended to other branches in the country. It should be
noted that Telecover staff in other branches did not get
special payment. However the Company was disappointed at the
very low level of customer traffic in D.C.B. after 6 p.m.
daily and on Saturdays. The Company decided to persevere
with the shift pattern but by early 1990 it was apparent that
it had become a problem of major proportions in D.C.B.
Whereas on the one hand Telecover evening and Saturday
business was very low, the general telephone operation in the
branch was becoming clogged-up because of the high level of
Telecover calls diverted to the branch as Telecover itself
could not cope with the traffic in the day-time. At this
point the Company determined that the solution to the problem
lay in the correction of the Telecover hours of working. In
October, 1990 the Company announced its intention to change
the shift pattern and extend Telecover to other branches. In
proportion to the reduction in the unsocial hours of the
shift work the Company claimed that the shift premium ought
to be reduced from 20% to 7.5% of basic pay. During the
course of discussions with the Union the Company stated that
7.5% shift-premium constituted an opening negotiating
position and in addition offered a lump sum of #800 per
individual. The Union refused to negotiate and would not
co-operate with the expansion of Telecover into other
branches.
4. The Company has adhered to the agreed procedures and
good industrial relations practice. Time has elapsed, excess
costs have been incurred, customer service is at an
unacceptable level and the Company has been prevented from
managing its working hours arrangements. The Company has
been willing to negotiate a reasonable and fair shift
premium. There is no differential justified between clerical
staff and Telecover staff except from the shift-working
standpoint. As the Company proposes to reduce shift-work the
shift premium should also be proportionately reduced.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the views of the parties in their
oral and written submissions finds as follows:
That the members should accept the Management proposals with
the following amendment: That the shift premium be reduced
to 12.50% of basic salary, the reduction to be phased in over a
three month period.
That as a gesture of good will the Company make a once off payment
of #1,500.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th June, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman