Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91469 Case Number: LCR13450 Section / Act: S20(1) Parties: BORD TELECOM EIREANN - and - TWO WORKERS |
Claim by the two workers concerning non-payment of bonus scheme to staff who have not joined paypath.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
It is the right of the employees to be party to the Paypath system
or not as they think fit.
However, in the case before the Court being party to the Paypath
system is an element of the Productivity package which resulted in
certain remuneration benefits to the employees in the Company.
The Court is of the view that for payment of the lump sums
associated with the agreement it is necessary for employees to
accept and implement all of the elements of the package.
Accordingly since the employees concerned do not wish to be party
to the Paypath system the Court finds no grounds for concession of
the employees claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91469 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13450
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969
PARTIES: BORD TELECOM EIREANN
and
TWO WORKERS
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the two workers concerning non-payment of bonus
scheme to staff who have not joined paypath.
BACKGROUND:
2. Agreement was reached between the Company and Trade Unions on
a company wide bonus scheme in May, 1986. As part of that
agreement, the Company sought and the Unions agreed certain
flexibility and cooperation measures. One such measure related to
the introduction of an automated pay system. The development of
this system was to be examined by the National Monitoring
Committee. The Committee in April, 1990, recommended the
introduction of payment through a paypath system. Agreement on
the introduction of the system was recorded between the Unions and
Company in Joint Conciliation Council Report No. 437 in May, 1990.
The only exception permitted in this agreement relates to certain
staff who, mainly, for geographical reasons, do not have direct
access to a Banks/Building Society's paypath system e.g. staff on
Achill Island. Paypath was introduced on a phased basis for all
staff and was completely in place in January, 1991. Under the
bonus scheme non-pensionable bonus payments of £3,699 have been
made and an additional £24.82 per week in pay increases have been
awarded. Agreement on a new bonus scheme was concluded in March,
1991. This agreement provided for ongoing co-operation with
measures "related to the previous bonus scheme". Payments made to
staff in accordance with the new scheme include a lead-in payment
of £770 and for staff in Dublin a further lump sum payment of £765
in respect of the outturn of performance against target for the
1990/91 financial year. A sum of £270 per annum (approx. £5 per
week) will be incorporated into pay with effect from 1st October,
1991 as part of this agreement. The two workers hereconcerned
declined to join the paypath scheme, preferring to have their
salaries paid by postal draft. The Company deemed that staff who
had not made arrangements to have their salaries paid by the
paypath system, ineligible for the bonus payments. In error, the
Company paid one of the two workers his salary, including the £770
lead-in payment into his bank account.
However, since he did not wish to be part of the paypath system he
is deemed to be ineligible for the lead-in payment and the Company
is recouping this at the rate of £25 per week. The two workers
concerned do not believe that their wish to be paid by draft
should exclude them from the bonus system and they believe that
they should receive the same payments as their colleagues. The
two workers referred the matter to the Labour Court on 26th
August, 1991 for investigation and recommendation under Section
20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Prior to the Court's
investigation of the matter on 26th September, 1991, the two
workers agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers believe that the paypath system imposes a
hardship. Whilst the service is initially free, bank charges
will at some later stage be imposed. The workers will be
charged to withdraw their money. This does not happen with a
draft payment system. The paypath system does not provide
staff with time to go to the bank to withdraw money. In fact
excessive time is spent by staff going to the bank to withdraw
money. This is a big cost to the Company. There is a general
inconvenience in using the banking system with its extensive
queries, as opposed to the quicker post-office draft system.
There is also no provision for payment in the event of a bank
strike.
2. In 1986, the National Monitoring Committee was given a
mandate to examine an automated payment system. They were not
mandated to go ahead with implementation. The workers
concerned expected that the Committee would report back and
then the workers would vote on acceptance. The workers
concerned contend that the Unions overstepped their mandate.
3. The workers concerned have provided full flexibility and
co-operation under the Agreement and have met all work targets
and for this reason alone the bonus should be paid to them.
If they do not receive the bonus then they do not see why they
should work the flexibility required under the scheme. The
lead-in payment should also be paid to these workers as it was
paid to compensate for the delay between the last agreement
and the current one. Staying outside the paypath system does
not justify the non-payment of the lead-in payment and bonus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers' refusal to conform with the requirement to
join the paypath system, places them outside the scope of the
bonus scheme agreement. Therefore, they are not entitled to
benefit from the payments agreed.
2. No member of staff may pick and choose which of the
co-operation and flexibility measures they will or will not
comply with. These measures have been agreed between the
Company and Unions and are not open for renegotiation on an
individual basis. Only six staff out of a total of thirteen
thousand five hundred have refused to comply with the paypath
system.
3. Neither of the workers have offered any reason or
explanation as to why they have chosen to remain outside the
paypath system and thus render themselves ineligible for the
bonus payments. From the Company's point of view there is no
reason for treating them exceptionally in this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions.
It is the right of the employees to be party to the Paypath system
or not as they think fit.
However, in the case before the Court being party to the Paypath
system is an element of the Productivity package which resulted in
certain remuneration benefits to the employees in the Company.
The Court is of the view that for payment of the lump sums
associated with the agreement it is necessary for employees to
accept and implement all of the elements of the package.
Accordingly since the employees concerned do not wish to be party
to the Paypath system the Court finds no grounds for concession of
the employees claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
________________________
23rd October, 1991 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.