Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94487 Case Number: LCR14610 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim by operative grades for the continuation a pay relationship with Limerick Corporation.
Recommendation:
The Court, in considering the dispute as referred to it, had
regard to the submissions made at the hearing and to the relative
position of the parties prior to the referral.
It appears to the Court that there is a degree of unanimity
between the parties on most of the items detailed by the
University in its letter dated the 5th May, 1994, which it, the
University considered, required acceptance/implementation in
return for concession of the claim as made by the Union.
The Court also notes that, following further discussions between
the parties, the University, on the 27th May, clarified a number
of points which, to an extent, alleviated some of the
apprehensions expressed previously by the Union.
It appears to the Court that the two letters referred to above
comprise a basis for the resolution of the dispute. However, it
is evident that three specific items, namely, flexibility, working
hours/overtime and method of payment, remain as contentious items
between the parties.
In an effort to resolve these differences between the parties the
Court makes the following recommendation regarding the three
specific items:-
1. Flexibility
Having regard to the commitment by both parties to the need
for flexibility and to the assurances given by the University
to the Union in its letter of the 27th May, and at the
hearing, the Court recommends that the proposals of the
University be accepted by the workers concerned;
2. Working hours/Overtime
The Court understands the University's anxieties regarding
maximum cover for its activities. However, it does appear to
the Court that the anxieties expressed by the Union regarding
the proposals on working hours and overtime may be
well-founded. In the event of an acceptance in principle by
the Union of these proposals it is apparent that the proposed
charge in working-hours arrangement coupled with the need for
a commitment of ten hours' overtime cover by the grade
concerned are issues which require detailed consultation
between the parties in that they involve a fundamental change
in the conditions of employment of the existing operatives on
an overall basis, while affecting individuals to varying
degrees.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties further
discuss these two issues with a view to arriving at
arrangements which will meet the requirements of the
University while minimising as far as possible any adverse
impact on existing conditions. The Court further recommends
that the above discussion be commenced forthwith and
concluded by the 28th February, 1995;
3. Method of payment
The Court, while noting that the Union accepts the
implementation of 'Paypath', recommends that the University
agree to the ongoing payment of wages on a weekly basis to
current operative grades and this should be subject to review
after twelve months operation.
Subject to the acceptance of the above recommendation by both
parties the offer made by the University should be implemented.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94487 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14610
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim by operative grades for the
continuation a pay relationship with Limerick Corporation.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. There is an established relationship for pay purposes
between operative grades in the University and operative
grades in Limerick Corporation. As part of a national
agreement covering local authorities outside Dublin, the
operatives in Limerick Corporation concluded an
agreement with the Corporation in respect of an increase
in weekly pay of #16.04. Payment was made following
agreement on the introduction of "Paypath".
Negotiations took place on the basis that "the payment
of the first phase increase will be contingent on the
parties reaching agreement in local negotiations on the
needs of the service for flexibility and change and for
greater cost efficiency of service delivery."
2. In September, 1993, the Union submitted a claim for an
increase in pay of #16.04 to 45 employees of the
University who work in the grounds, portering, mail-room
and service areas of the University. By letter of 5th
May, 1994, the University agreed to pay the increase of
#16.04 in exchange for the following:-
"1. Flexibility: There will be total flexibility and
interchangeability between all of the grades covered
by this agreement. This will entail the right of
the University to assign any individual employed in
the Operative Grades to duties on a short term or
long term basis based on the exigencies of the
service. (The University clarified that it was not
its intention to move staff without good reason or
frequently or without adequate notice).
2. Working hours: Due to the growing needs of the
University, there will now be a need to ensure that
employees within the Operative Grades provide the
maximum cover required by the University. In this
regard, employees within the Operative Grades may
not be required to work between the hours of 08h00
and 20h00. The arrangements to effect these hours
will be advised at local level. This will not
result in a shift system, but will result in
staggered start times, staggered lunch breaks and
staggered finishing times. It is also envisaged
that further developments in this area, such as
increased working times during the summer season
with corresponding shorter working week in the
winter may be necessary. The finer details of such
arrangements will, of course, be outlined in detail
to the Union prior to the implementation of such an
arrangement.
While it is not envisaged that overtime will form part
of the ongoing requirement of the Operative Grades, the
University, nonetheless, requires that a guarantee be
given by the Operative Grades that at least 10 hours
overtime per week will be covered by the Operative
Grades in each of the areas in which they are employed.
(The University clarified that it was not its intention
to introduce annual hours).
3. Payment methods: All employees within the Operative
Grades will, with effect from an agreed date, move
from the current weekly payment system to a monthly
system. The timing and arrangements for this move
will be fully discussed with the Trade Union.
(Following discussions the University agreed to
modify its proposal to a fortnightly system).
4. Social Employment Schemes: Full co-operation will
be given by the Operative Grades in connection with
the introduction of social employment schemes at the
University.
5. Technology and Mechanisation: The Operative Grades
will reiterate their ongoing co-operation with the
introduction of technology and mechanisation.
6. Training/Retraining Programmes: The Operative Grade
will co-operate fully with training/retraining
programmes and in relation to changes in work
procedures which may be implemented in accordance
with greater emphasis on quality within the
University. This will involve co-operation with
initiatives in areas such as TQM and Team Building.
7. Reporting Relationships: Full co-operation will be
afforded by the Operative Grades in connection with
the introduction of new reporting relationships on
foot of the current restructuring and future
restructuring which may take place within the
University.
The phasing of the payment will be as follows:-
#6.00 per week from the 1st January, 1993.
#5.04 per week from the 1st April, 1994 and
#5.00 per week form the 1st May, 1995.
The Company clarified aspects of its offer by letter
dated 27th May, 1994.
3. The Company's offer was rejected by the Union and the
dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 22nd June, 1994.
No progress was possible at conciliation and on 27th
September, 1994, the claim was referred to the Labour
Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Limerick on 3rd November, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union accepts that the increase of #16.04 claimed
has to be the subject of agreement. In this regard the
agreement reached by the workers' Corporation
equivalents is the most relevant guide . The initial
claim was to reduce the earnings gap between those
operatives employed in the Dublin area and those outside
it. It was not part of the establishment of the figure
of #16.04 that it was required to be offset in whole or
in part against productivity concessions. The pay
increase claimed should be applied on the basis of a
direct comparison with Limerick Corporation.
2. The Union's specific response to the University's
proposals is as follows:-
1. Flexibility: There exists considerable flexibility
and interchangeability among all grades covered by
the agreement. There is no need for any changes in
this area. The Union has indicated that the
University's restructuring which includes an
assurance that a proposal to rationalise the grades
at groundsman level would be forthcoming from the
University was acceptable in principle and would be
agreed in return for the payment of the #16.04.
2. Working Hours: This concession sought by the
University is unreasonable and out of proportion to
the level of productivity which is being sought in
return for the increase.
3. Payment Methods: The Union agrees to the
introduction of the "Paypath" system which imposes
additional costs on the worker while providing
substantial savings to the University. The other
concessions sought are excessive.
4. Social Employment Schemes: The University's
proposal is acceptable to the Union.
5. Technology and Mechanisation: The University's
proposal is acceptable to the Union.
6. Training/Retraining Programmes: The University's
proposal is acceptable to the Union.
7. Reporting Relationships: The University's proposal
is acceptable if it includes the outstanding issue
of the restructuring of the grounds staff.
UNIVERSITY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Any agreement to pay the award of #16.04 must be based
upon the needs of the service for flexibility and change
and for greater cost efficiency of service delivered in
the context of the organisation involved. The
University's revised proposals are fair and reasonable
changes in work practices which are consistent with and
based on the requirements of the University. The
Corporation's settlement is not appropriate to the
University.
2. The University's agreed work practices are different
from than the local authority. It is accepted that a
pay relationship has existed for some time. However,
the payment of the #16.04 can only be made if the
employing authority gets a return for the payment. It
is accepted by the Special Tribunal, set up to
investigate disputes on productivity changes (details
supplied), that the return will differ from organisation
to organisation and location to location.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, in considering the dispute as referred to it, had
regard to the submissions made at the hearing and to the relative
position of the parties prior to the referral.
It appears to the Court that there is a degree of unanimity
between the parties on most of the items detailed by the
University in its letter dated the 5th May, 1994, which it, the
University considered, required acceptance/implementation in
return for concession of the claim as made by the Union.
The Court also notes that, following further discussions between
the parties, the University, on the 27th May, clarified a number
of points which, to an extent, alleviated some of the
apprehensions expressed previously by the Union.
It appears to the Court that the two letters referred to above
comprise a basis for the resolution of the dispute. However, it
is evident that three specific items, namely, flexibility, working
hours/overtime and method of payment, remain as contentious items
between the parties.
In an effort to resolve these differences between the parties the
Court makes the following recommendation regarding the three
specific items:-
1. Flexibility
Having regard to the commitment by both parties to the need
for flexibility and to the assurances given by the University
to the Union in its letter of the 27th May, and at the
hearing, the Court recommends that the proposals of the
University be accepted by the workers concerned;
2. Working hours/Overtime
The Court understands the University's anxieties regarding
maximum cover for its activities. However, it does appear to
the Court that the anxieties expressed by the Union regarding
the proposals on working hours and overtime may be
well-founded. In the event of an acceptance in principle by
the Union of these proposals it is apparent that the proposed
charge in working-hours arrangement coupled with the need for
a commitment of ten hours' overtime cover by the grade
concerned are issues which require detailed consultation
between the parties in that they involve a fundamental change
in the conditions of employment of the existing operatives on
an overall basis, while affecting individuals to varying
degrees.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties further
discuss these two issues with a view to arriving at
arrangements which will meet the requirements of the
University while minimising as far as possible any adverse
impact on existing conditions. The Court further recommends
that the above discussion be commenced forthwith and
concluded by the 28th February, 1995;
3. Method of payment
The Court, while noting that the Union accepts the
implementation of 'Paypath', recommends that the University
agree to the ongoing payment of wages on a weekly basis to
current operative grades and this should be subject to review
after twelve months operation.
Subject to the acceptance of the above recommendation by both
parties the offer made by the University should be implemented.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st November, 1994 Evelyn Owens
J.F./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.