Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94280 Case Number: LCR14561 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - BORD NA MONA GROUP OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning the updating of bonus rates for rail transport operatives.
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions considers that the
parties should engage in meaningful negotiations to finalise an
alternative transport system which, given the current situation in
the Company, will be efficient and cost effective.
It is the view of the Court that these negotiation should be
completed on or before the 1st November, 1994.
In the event of any disagreement the Court will review the
negotiations and seek to assist the parties.
In the interim it is the recommendation of the Court that the
bonus scheme be updated in accordance with the terms of the 1982
agreement.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94280 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14561
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BORD NA MONA
AND
BORD NA MONA GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the updating of bonus rates for rail
transport operatives.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The workers concerned are employed on rail transport
operations supplying peat to E.S.B. peat burning
stations and a briquette factory. In addition to their
hourly rate of pay they receive an incentive bonus based
on performance. An Agreement negotiated in 1982
provided for the annual adjustment of the bonus rates.
In 1989 the Company and Unions agreed a "Partnership for
Progress Framework" which provided for significant
changes in all areas of the Company to make it cost
effective and competitive. Significant changes have
been implemented in many areas of the Company. In 1992
the Company put forward proposals for a new work system
in the transport area. The Company proposals included
postponing the annual adjustment of the bonus rates
pending agreement to changes in the transport area. The
Unions rejected the proposals.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the
4th November, 1993. Subsequently the Industrial
Relations Officer put forward the following settlement
proposal:-
"Both parties agree to enter negotiations on a new
agreement in relation to the Rail Transport
Operation : such discussions to have been fully
exhausted by end-April 1994 (local talks,
conciliation, arbitration if necessary).
The Company shall make immediate payment of amount
due under the bonus update of Phase 1 of P.E.S.P..
On conclusion of agreement, the Company agrees to
pay all further amounts then outstanding."
The proposal was rejected by the Unions and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th May, 1994
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute
on the 23rd August, 1994.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 1982 Agreement committed the Company to implementing
an annual review of the bonus rate in line with pay
increases. The Company is in breach of that Agreement.
2. It is unreasonable and unfair of the Company to withhold
the bonus increase pending agreement being reached on
the introduction of a new work system.
3. The Unions remain available to discuss with Management
their proposals on new work systems on transport,
independent of the bonus issue.
4. The bonus must be increased in line with increases due
under the P.E.S.P. retrospectively to the implementation
date of the first phase of P.E.S.P..
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company, with the agreement of the Unions, has
achieved significant changes in most production areas.
It is essential that change takes place in the transport
area in line with the Company's proposals to reduce
costs, which are at an unacceptably high level.
2. In other areas of the Company a change programme for
transport has already been agreed and implemented.
3. The Company is at a crucial point in its development.
In order to secure employment and to be competitive it
is vital that cost efficiencies be achieved and that
work practice changes signalled in the 1989 Agreement be
implemented.
4. The Company has always recognised the validity of
Company/Union agreements. The issue of updating the
bonuses on the transport area can only be considered in
the context of the 1989 Agreement. The Labour Relations
Commission proposal recognised the importance of change
in transport by setting a time frame within which an
agreement can be concluded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions considers that the
parties should engage in meaningful negotiations to finalise an
alternative transport system which, given the current situation in
the Company, will be efficient and cost effective.
It is the view of the Court that these negotiations should be
completed on or before the 1st November, 1994.
In the event of any disagreement the Court will review the
negotiations and seek to assist the parties.
In the interim it is the recommendation of the Court that the
bonus scheme be updated in accordance with the terms of the 1982
agreement.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th September, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.