Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95164 Case Number: LCR14780 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BORD NA MONA - and - I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS |
'Fall-back' guarantee of Autonomous Work Group leaders.
Recommendation:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
There was a clear conflict of evidence between the parties in
relation to how the fall-back guarantee was to be treated.
On balance, the Court feels the evidence submitted by the Company
is more compelling and, therefore, does not recommend the updating
of the fall-back allowance.
The Court, however, recommends that the parties meet to discuss
ways of merging the two systems sooner rather than later, to avoid
ongoing problems.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95164 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14780
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BORD NA MONA
AND
I.C.T.U. GROUP OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. 'Fall-back' guarantee of Autonomous Work Group leaders.
BACKGROUND:
2. Autonomous Work Groups (A.W.G.) were established in 1989
under a framework which provided team leaders with a
guaranteed minimum yearly income (fall-back) of #15,600. The
system was in operation for a trial period of 1 year and was
superseded by Autonomous Enterprise Units (A.E.U.) which
provided team leaders with a lower fall-back (#11,600 p.a.)
but with a higher payment on achievement of 100% of target.
The 5 A.W.G. team leaders already in existence retained their
conditions although 1 has voluntarily switched to A.U.E.,
which both parties are agreed is the better model.
The Unions are seeking to have the fall-back guarantee paid
to A.W.G. team leaders updated by the various national wage
rounds since 1989 and paid retrospectively. The claim is on
the grounds that the A.U.E. leaders have had their minimum
increased since 1989, thus narrowing the gap between it and
A.W.G. minimum.
The Company's position is that the A.W.G. leaders were 'red-
circled' at a higher minimum guarantee than the A.U.E.
leaders, but that the gap was to be eroded in time.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference on
the 17th of November, 1994, under the auspices of the Labour
Relations Commission, at which agreement was not reached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 27th of
February, 1995, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute, in Tullamore, on the 16th of May, 1995.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the fall-back guarantee in the A.E.U. has
increased in line with pay inflation, from #11,600 to
#13,481, the fall-back guarantee for the A.W.G. has
remained frozen at #15,600. The Group leaders are now
looking for their fall-back guarantee to be adjusted in
line with pay increases since 1989.
2. The A.W.G. team leaders are the only group of employees
within the Company who have been subjected to a pay
freeze.
3. The freezing of their fall-back guarantee for such a
length of time is unfair and unreasonable.
4. Having regard to the lower earnings attained in
Autonomous Work Groups compared with Autonomous
Enterprise Units at 100% target, the non-adjustment of
their fall-back guarantee effectively means that Bord na
Mona is paying a lower price for peat supplied by the
Autonomous Work Groups as against the price paid to the
Autonomous Enterprise Units.
5. The Unions have difficulty with the Company's assertion
that it was agreed to maintain the existing fall-back
level of #15,600 for A.W.G. leaders on the clear
understanding that they were guaranteed the same
equivalent basic rate as A.E.U. leaders but would retain
on a personal basis the difference between 11,600 and
#15,600.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With the establishment of the A.E.U. in 1990, the
Company sought to bring the level of fall-back guarantee
for A.W.G. team leaders into line with that of A.E.U.
team leaders. Following Union representations, it was
agreed to maintain the existing fall-back level of
#15,600 for A.W.G. leaders. This was on the
understanding that they were guaranteed the equivalent
basic rate as A.E.U. leaders but would retain, on a
personal basis, the difference between #11,600 and
#15,600.
2. Since 1990, it has been clearly indicated to Autonomous
Work Group Team Leaders that they had the option of
transferring to the Autonomous Enterprise Unit system
and, to date, 2 Groups have availed of this option.
The continued application of wage round increases to the
basic rate and the gradual reduction in the differential
held on a personal basis will see a gradual merging of
the fall-back guarantee for Autonomous Work Groups and
Autonomous Enterprise Units, which is clearly in line
with the intention of the Group of Unions as stated in
its letter of 19th of October, 1990.
3. The approach taken by the Company on the fall-back
guarantee for Autonomous Work Group Leaders has been in
line with clear understandings reached with the Group of
Unions and has been in operation for 5 years prior to
the claim being submitted in August 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by both
parties.
There was a clear conflict of evidence between the parties in
relation to how the fall-back guarantee was to be treated.
On balance, the Court feels the evidence submitted by the Company
is more compelling and, therefore, does not recommend the updating
of the fall-back allowance.
The Court, however, recommends that the parties meet to discuss
ways of merging the two systems sooner rather than later, to avoid
ongoing problems.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th May, 1995 Finbarr Flood
M.K./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.