FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIMERICK CORPORATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Arrangement relating to wheeled-bin service.
BACKGROUND:
2. The wheeled-bin collection service was introduced by Limerick Corporation in 1993. At various stages during the discussions the services of the Irish Productivity Centre, the University of Limerick, a joint Management/Union work study group, the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission have been used.
The dispute before the Court concerns the levels of the threshold of average bin lifts for which a fixed payment is made. The threshold was established following an agreement reached under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in March, 1996.
The agreement made provision for quarterly reviews of the threshold and adjustments where appropriate. In the event of disagreement on the reviews the agreement provided for a referral to the Labour Court and for its decision to be binding on the parties.
Under the terms of the agreement a fixed payment is made for the lifting of between 12,250 bins and the threshold figure of 15,250 bins. This payment currently stands at £62 per week per crew member and is linked to basic pay and is reckonable for pension purposes.
For lifting in excess of 15,250 bins a payment of 8 pence per week per bin applies. This payment fluctuates and is paid in arrears.
The number of lifts beyond 15,250 is verified by a joint working party consisting of 2 Union representatives and 2 Management representatives. If a new threshold figure is established by reference to the joint exercise then the fixed payment will move in line with this figure.
In December, 1996 the Union sought a review of the threshold. Local-level discussions took place following which the Corporation, on the basis of the activity levels for the previous three quarters put forward a proposal to increase the threshold to 15,400. The Unions rejected the proposal.
In the period from 6th June to the 16th June, 1997 the workers refused to carry out the full range of collection duties and were suspended without pay. A conciliation conference held on the 17th June, 1997 concentrated on restoring normal working arrangements. Agreement was reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd June, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 24th June, 1997.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions are satisfied that a sustainable pattern of increase in the number of lifts over 15,250 has developed since the system was introduced and are seeking a revised threshold of 16,100.
2. Having regard to the increasing demands on the service from existing customers and demands arising from new local authority and private housing estates the indications are that the number of lifts in excess of 15,250 will continue to rise in the future.
3. The Unions' claim for an increase in the threshold is based on figures agreed by the joint working party which illustrate a considerable increase in figures for the quarter ending May, 1997.
4. The workers concerned are seeking payment for the 4 days loss of earnings due to suspension. The Corporation's action in suspending the workers was in breach of the Union/Corporation procedural agreement.
CORPORATION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Corporation is extremely concerned that the workers engaged in unofficial industrial action soon after agreeing a new procedural agreement. Their actions were clearly in breach of the agreement.
2. The workers attempted to justify their actions by claiming that there is no obligation to lift in excess of 15,250 bins. The wheeled-bin agreement clearly provides for bin lifts beyond 15,250 and made payment arrangements for same.
3. The compensation method under the wheeled-bin agreement provides a satisfactory method of dealing with a situation where a base workload and a fluctuating additional workload exists.
4. The threshold figure is meant to be an indication of the average level of lifts in excess of the base level which refuse workers can reasonably expect to carry out on any given week. For this reason the threshold figure should be as near to the standard weekly workloads as possible as it represents the fixed element of the bonus. Bin lifts in excess of the threshold continue to be compensated as they arise. The offer of 15,400 made by the Corporation is a fair offer having regard to the activity levels in relation to the previous three quarters.
5. The variation of the threshold is an issue which will arise on an ongoing basis. As this problem has already given rise to conflict and industrial action the Corporation proposes that a mechanism be agreed which will provide for future reviews. It proposes that the
threshold in the future be reviewed on an annual basis. The level of the threshold should be set at an average of all bin lifts over the previous 4 quarters. As the threshold is a bonus payment which is a reflection of work actually carried out, the threshold should be capable of being varied downwards as well as upwards as part of the annual review.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the matters raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions makes the following recommendations.
(1) That the threshold be established at 15,700 with effect from 1 July 1997. That the number of lifts be verified in accordance with the procedures outlined in the agreement under the heading "Method of Verification".
The threshold figure to be reviewed every twelve months and the fixed payment amended in line with the threshold figure. (The parties to accept that the threshold figure may vary up or down as a result of the verification).
(2) The lifts in respect of weeks including public holidays to be calculated on the basis of lifts made on the 3 equivalent days (i.e. public holiday on Monday, the average of the lifts on the previous three Mondays to be used).
(3) The Corporation to arrange for the price per lift to be expressed in current terms taking into account increases as a consequence of pay agreements.
(4) The Court does not recommend concession of payment in respect of the days lost through suspension and calls on both parties to adhere to the agreements made and use the procedures before any other action is considered.
The Court, noting this recommendation in accordance with the agreement is binding on the parties, requests them to implement its terms as soon as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
9th July, 1997______________________
F.B./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.