Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9648 Case Number: LCR15120 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CHUBB IRELAND LIMITED (Represented by IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Call forms, bleeper/pager system, on-call/overtime payments, pay differentials, bonus scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, makes the following
recommendations:
(1) Call Forms - The Court notes that the Company is currently
designing a new form and will have consultation with the
employees. The Court recommends that the parties seek to put
in place an acceptable form within a month of the issue of
this recommendation.
(2) Bleeper/Pager System - The Court recommends that the
Bleeper/Pager System as proposed by the Company be accepted
and implemented.
(3) On Call/Overtime - The Court notes that the reason given for
the different payments of overtime is the number of call outs
received by the members of each grade. The Court considers
that if there is to be equitable treatment of the employees,
the payment made, given its construction, should reflect the
liability to call out rather than the number of such calls.
However, since the rate of payment formed part of the
agreement on the establishment of Grade 1, the Court is not
clear as to the factors taken into account at that time in
arriving at the overtime guarantee for call out. In all the
circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties discuss
the matter further and agree an equitable rate of payment to
apply to the Grade 1 employees.
(4) Pay Differentials - The Court does not find grounds have been
adduced for concession of this claim.
(5) Bonus Scheme - The Court recommends that the employees be
paid £150 nett per annum for any potential loss of earnings
as a consequence of the termination of the bonus scheme.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9648 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15120
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
CHUBB IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Call forms, bleeper/pager system, on-call/overtime payments,
pay differentials, bonus scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to 22 service engineers employed in
Dublin, Cork and Limerick. There are 4 Grade 1
engineers and 18 Grade 2 engineers involved.
(1) Call Forms:
There are 2 issues involved. Firstly, there are at
present 3 forms which have to be filled in by the
service engineers. The Union claims that the engineers
find this cumbersome. The Company is devising a new
three-in-one form to solve the problem. The second
issue is that the engineers have agreed to fill in time
spent travelling and on-site in terms of hours, but not
the arrival and departure times from a customer.
(2) Bleeper/pager system:
Service engineers in Dublin already wear bleepers when
on call at night and during week-ends. The Company
wants to extend the use of bleepers to all engineers at
all times. The Union is opposed to this and has
suggested the use of mobile phones as an alternative.
(3) On-call/overtime payments:
Grade 1 engineers are paid 8 hours pay when on-call at
night to cover the absence of a colleague due to
illness. Grade 2 engineers are paid 12 hours pay. On
one occasion when a Grade 1 engineer was absent for
approximately 3 months, the other Grade 1 engineers
refused to cover for him unless they were paid 12 hours
pay. The Company paid the 12 hours at the time but wish
to pay 8 hours in future.
(4) Pay differential:
Both installation and service engineers are paid the
same basic rate of £276.20 per week. Installation
engineers are paid travel time whilst service engineers
are paid a service differential. The service engineers
claim that they have lost out to the installation
engineers over the years and want to restore the
differential.
(5) Bonus scheme:
The service engineers' bonus scheme was suspended in
March, 1993. The Company intends to reintroduce it.
The issue here is the amount of the lump sum payment
since the cessation of the payment. The Union estimates
the amount at approximately £850 gross, the Company is
offering £100 net per annum.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and 3 conciliation conferences took place, the final one on
17th November, 1995. There was no agreement reached between
the parties and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on 30th January, 1996, in accordance with Section 26(1),
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took
place on 4th March, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Call Forms:
There is no need for 3 separate forms. One form with
service, extra time, time and materials and inspections
is sufficient. Filling out times of arrivals and
departures has never been used in the Company before.
None of the engineers were consulted about the changes
to the form.
2. Bleeper/pager system:
Engineers have not used bleepers before during the
working day, as there are radios in the vans and
telephones on the premises they visit. Mobile phones
would be more useful than bleepers.
3. On call/overtime payments:
Both grades of engineers should be treated the same and
receive 12 hours pay if they have to cover for an absent
colleague.
4. Pay differential:
At one time, a service job was seen as a promotion and
an increase in money, due to the difference between it
and an installation job. Now installation engineers
earn more money per week than service engineers. There
should be an increase in pay to the service engineers to
restore the differential.
5. Bonus scheme:
Service engineers received approximately £80 every 3
months on the bonus scheme. This figure was agreed at a
conciliation conference held on 20th September, 1993.
This equates to approximately £850 gross since the bonus
scheme was suspended in March, 1993.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Call Form:
The arrival and departure times should be written by the
service engineer. If they are at their designated place
of work on time, there is no reason not to fill in the
details.
2. Bleeper/pager system:
The use of bleepers would be of convenience to the
engineers themselves, customers and the Company.
3. On call/overtime payments:
It is custom and practice that Grade 1 engineers receive
8 hours pay when on-call at night. Grade 2 engineers
receive 12 hours pay as they are called out more often.
4. Pay differential:
Service engineers are paid a night service allowance of
£31.37 and a service differential of £20.08 per week.
These amounts are increased in line with CPI twice
annually. The Company will re-examine the payments but
cannot afford to increase pay at a cost to its
customers.
5. The Company's offer of £300 net is reasonable in all
circumstances. Average figures per quarter were closer
to £20 -30 per employee rather than £80.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions, makes the following
recommendations:
(1) Call Forms - The Court notes that the Company is currently
designing a new form and will have consultation with the
employees. The Court recommends that the parties seek to put
in place an acceptable form within a month of the issue of
this recommendation.
(2) Bleeper/Pager System - The Court recommends that the
Bleeper/Pager System as proposed by the Company be accepted
and implemented.
(3) On Call/Overtime - The Court notes that the reason given for
the different payments of overtime is the number of call outs
received by the members of each grade. The Court considers
that if there is to be equitable treatment of the employees,
the payment made, given its construction, should reflect the
liability to call out rather than the number of such calls.
However, since the rate of payment formed part of the
agreement on the establishment of Grade 1, the Court is not
clear as to the factors taken into account at that time in
arriving at the overtime guarantee for call out. In all the
circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties discuss
the matter further and agree an equitable rate of payment to
apply to the Grade 1 employees.
(4) Pay Differentials - The Court does not find grounds have been
adduced for concession of this claim.
(5) Bonus Scheme - The Court recommends that the employees be
paid £150 nett per annum for any potential loss of earnings
as a consequence of the termination of the bonus scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th March, 1996 Tom McGrath
C.O'N./S.G. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.