LCR13547

Subject:
Non-inclusion of certain retired workers in Company bonus scheme.

Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the claimants
in their submissions oral and written, and has also considered the
views expressed by Telecom in correspondence to the Court.

The Court having considered the arguments of both parties
regarding the right of the complainants to involve Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 finds that pensioners are
not workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts.
However in this case the dispute referred to by the complainants
concerns interpretation and application of an agreement they claim
encompasses the years 1986 - 1991 during which period they were
employees of the Company. The Court accordingly takes the view
that the case is properly before the Court.


With regard to the employees claim, the Court finds that the issue
of a "lead in" payment was included in the bonus negotiations
between the parties.

The parties agreed to a lead in payment subject to agreement on
the overall bonus package, and to a range of co-operation and
flexibility measures to be paid to staff serving on the date of
the agreement. It is clear to the Court that payment of the lead
in payment was conditional on workers (a) accepting the overall
bonus package, (b) being in employment with the Company on the
date of the agreement and consequently being in a position to give
the co-operation and flexibility demanded by the terms of the
agreement.

In the circumstances as the complainants could not fulfill these
conditions the Court does not find grounds for concession of their
claim and accordingly rejects it.

The Court so recommends.

Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD91585 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13547

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1969


PARTIES: TELECOM EIREANN

and

A WORKER

SUBJECT:
1. Non-inclusion of certain retired workers in Company bonus
scheme.

BACKGROUND:
2. The worker concerned retired from the Company on 31st May,
1990 under the early retirement scheme. The dispute before the
Court involves the bonus scheme which the Company introduced for
an initial three year period to cover the years 1985/86, 1986/87,
1987/88. The main conditions of the scheme were that there would
be co-operation and flexibility by the staff in a wide range of
areas which would lead to greater efficiency and increased
productivity. During the final year of the scheme 1987/88
management and staff representatives entered into discussions on a
proposed new scheme which would become operative immediately on
the expiration of the initial scheme. As agreement could not be
reached on a new scheme in time for 1988/89, it was agreed to
extend the initial scheme to cover that year. The main difficulty
arose from management's refusal to agree consolidation into basic
pay of any part of bonus payments made under the new scheme.
Agreement on the new scheme was not reached until March, 1991.
The new bonus scheme provided for a lead-in payment to be paid to
full-time staff serving on the day the agreement was signed and
payment of a bonus in respect of 1990/91. The worker claims that
the lead-in payment was in fact a reward for productivity and
co-operation in the year 1989/90 and sought an amendment to the
agreement to include workers serving on 3Oth March, 1990. The
Company rejected the claim. The worker referred the matter to the
Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1969 and agreed to be bound by the recommendation of the Court.
The Company informed the Court by letter dated 13th December, 1991
that they would not be represented at the hearing because they do
not consider that pensioners are workers within the meaning of
Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. The Court
hearing took place on 17th December, 1991.


WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The application of the title "lead-in" with the condition
that the bonus would only be paid to workers serving on the
date of the agreement is a deliberate ploy to avoid payment to
over 600 workers who served throughout 1989/90 but who retired
or resigned between the end of 1989/90 and 28th March, 1991.

2. There was no possibility of obtaining workers agreement to
a new bonus scheme in the absence of payment for the increased
productivity and co-operation which continued throughout
1989/90.

3. The agreement to the "lead-in" payment and to its
incorporation into basic pay is, in effect, a de facto
extension of the initial bonus scheme.

4. The worker is entitled to the lead-in payment to the bonus
scheme. This payment is a bonus for 1989/90 and no playing
with words can alter that fact.

5. Management were aware that a payment in respect of 1989/90
would have to be made if they wished the goodwill of the
staff, which is a feature of the Company since its inception,
was to be retained. Provision was made in on-going financial
reports for anticipated bonus payments for that year.

RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the views expressed by the claimants
in their submissions oral and written, and has also considered the
views expressed by Telecom in correspondence to the Court.

The Court having considered the arguments of both parties
regarding the right of the complainants to involve Section 20(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 finds that pensioners are
not workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Acts.
However in this case the dispute referred to by the complainants
concerns interpretation and application of an agreement they claim
encompasses the years 1986 - 1991 during which period they were
employees of the Company. The Court accordingly takes the view
that the case is properly before the Court.


With regard to the employees claim, the Court finds that the issue
of a "lead in" payment was included in the bonus negotiations
between the parties.

The parties agreed to a lead in payment subject to agreement on
the overall bonus package, and to a range of co-operation and
flexibility measures to be paid to staff serving on the date of
the agreement. It is clear to the Court that payment of the lead
in payment was conditional on workers (a) accepting the overall
bonus package, (b) being in employment with the Company on the
date of the agreement and consequently being in a position to give
the co-operation and flexibility demanded by the terms of the
agreement.

In the circumstances as the complainants could not fulfill these
conditions the Court does not find grounds for concession of their
claim and accordingly rejects it.

The Court so recommends.
~

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court


Tom McGrath
________________________
13th February, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.