Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93145 Case Number: LCR14030 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ERICSSON LIMITED (ATHLONE) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the 3% pay increase provided for under Clause 3 of Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions recommends that the
Company proposals be implemented including the introduction of the
appraisal scheme on a trial basis.
The operation of the scheme to be continuously monitored during
the trial period and reviewed in November, 1993.
Subject to acceptance of the above recommendation the 3% provided
for under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress to be implemented with effect from 1st June, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93145 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14030
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ERICSSON LIMITED (ATHLONE)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the 3% pay increase provided for under Clause 3 of
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. Ericsson Limited is a Swedish Telecommunications Company which
employs 750 people at locations in Dublin and Athlone. The
Company has two divisions in Athlone, E.E.I. and L.M.I..
In April, 1992, the Union submitted a claim on behalf of clerical
workers employed in E.E.I. and L.M.I. for a pay increase of 3%
under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. The two Groups negotiate jointly but
ballot separately. At local level discussions the Company agreed
in principle to the increase with effect from 1st June, 1992, in
return for acceptance by the workers of proposals put forward by
the Company (details supplied with the Court). The Union rejected
the proposals.
The Union claims that the proposed changes in the appraisal scheme
could lose the workers concerned the 2% of bonus available under
the attendance clause. The Company rejected the claim. The
Company propose to replace the attendance clause with a clause
relating to overall job performance.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences took place on 5th November, 1992 and 20th
November, 1992. Proposals worked out at conciliation were
accepted by workers in L.M.I. but rejected by workers in E.E.I..
A further conciliation conference was held on 16th December, 1992
but no agreement was reached and the matter was referred to the
Labour Court on 19th February, 1993. The Labour Court hearing
took place on 2nd March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The proposed changes in the appraisal scheme would make
agreement between the appraisee and the appraiser difficult to
achieve.
2. Linking the claim under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. to the
proposed new staff appraisal scheme could affect staff
performance.
3. Under the proposed changes in the appraisal scheme the
Company do not guarantee the same earnings for the same work
performance.
4. Under the Trim 92 project the workers concerned
co-operated with management in a number of cost-saving
measures which made a significant contribution towards the
Company achieving substantial savings in 1992.
5. The total savings achieved under Trim 92 would in itself
justify the increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
6. The agreement reached between management and workers in
the design grades is the type of agreement the workers
concerned would welcome. The workers concerned are not
prepared to agree to a radical alteration of the staff
appraisal scheme which could cost them up to 2%.
7. Comparison with the majority group in E.E.I. i.e. the
design staff is relevant. The design staff will secure their
3% increase in the context of improved flexi-time and improved
merit await dates. The workers concerned received no offer on
flexi-time, no offer on merit review dates but could lose up
2% of bonus on the attendance factor.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The performance-related appraisal scheme determines the
payment of a bonus on a percentage basis of salary.
2. The new appraisal scheme has been accepted by the majority
of the clerical employees. Although new in content, it has
the same earning potential for bonus purposes.
3. The new appraisal scheme is a less complicated scheme for
evaluating the job. It provides for an appeal procedure which
allows for grievances to be processed.
4. The present system has been in operation for a period of
12 years. A project group, which included representatives
from the clerical sector had made suggestions that the
appraisal form and scheme be updated.
5. The telecommunications market is extremely competitive and
critical factors for success are cost, delivery times and
quality. Since the disruption in the money markets and
despite devaluation of the Irish Pound, the Company is
currently experiencing a loss of 16% in its competitive
position due to currency changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions recommends that the
Company proposals be implemented including the introduction of the
appraisal scheme on a trial basis.
The operation of the scheme to be continuously monitored during
the trial period and reviewed in November, 1993.
Subject to acceptance of the above recommendation the 3% provided
for under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress to be implemented with effect from 1st June, 1992.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
14th April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.