FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COILLTE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payments under clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim on behalf of a group of approximately 90 forestry workers for the application of the two "analogue" pay increases (£16.00 and £12.65) which were applied to local authority workers under Clause 3 of the PESP. The Union claims that the group, who are employed on the Incentive Bonus Scheme (IBS) system, have a long-standing pay relationship with the local authority workers and that they were guaranteed, in the legislation under which Coillte was established and under which they transferred from the former Department of Forestry, that their conditions of employment would not be diminished except in accordance with a collective agreement. They indicated, however, that they would consider some concession in return for the increases sought. The Company's position is that no pay relationship existed with the local authority workers prior to the transfer legislation. The Company did, however, offer its forestry workers a deal under Clause 3 of the PESP, involving a transfer to a piece rate system which provided for a £3,000 payment. The Company indicated that when it made its offer, which was accepted by the majority of the workers concerned, it was made clear that those who declined the offer would not receive 3% under Clause 3.
The dispute was the subject of 3 conciliation conferences, during the course of which the Company suggested certain changes, e.g., reduction in wet time, travelling time, tea time, etc. The concession of such changes was unacceptable to the workers. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 1st of March, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation on the 4th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. A long established pay relationship exists between the forestry and local authority workers, which is evidenced by documentation on public service pay proposals, previous Labour Court recommendations and a worker/director report (details supplied to the Court).
2. If the claimants were still employed by the Department, they would have received the benefit of the analogue settlements as have other state industrial employees. On their transfer from the Department, in 1989, the workers were protected by Section 43 of the Forestry Act which guaranteed that there would be no change in their pay or conditions of service without agreement.
3. The Company's argument that it had discharged its obligation under Clause 3 of PESP on the basis that it had embraced the 3% local bargaining clause in the establishment of a new piece rate/autonomous work group system is refuted by the Union. No agreement between the Union and Management was ever concluded on the introduction of the piece rate system. The Company offered the new piece-rate to each individual worker on a voluntary basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Coillte has complied fully with both the terms and the spirit of the local bargaining clause of PESP. Coillte was established as a commercial State company and, as such, applies the terms of the national wage agreements as applicable to the private sector rather than the public service.
2. Pay rationalisation in Coillte (developed on the strength of the commitments contained in the 1993 agreement with SIPTU) related to the needs and conditions of a company with a commercial mandate as distinct from the pay rationalisation that took place in respect of general operatives in Government departments.
3. By definition industrial staff ceased to be covered by the Joint Industrial Council for State employees when Coillte was established as a commercial State company.
4. A direct relationship between the pay of rural local authorities and State industrial employees was only established in 1993 (after Coillte had been established) when the pay of general operatives in Government departments outside Dublin was rationalised in accordance with the arrangements in rural local authorities (less 2% to take account of pension contributions made by local authority general operatives).
5. Earlier attempts to establish a direct relationship (pre-Coillte) with rural local authorities and to have the rationalised pay structure introduced in local authorities extended to general operatives in Government departments outside Dublin were rejected by the Labour Court in 1981.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submission of the parties. The claim by the Union on behalf of Coillte IBS workers for the application of the analogue settlement of £16.04 and £12.65, as applied to local authority workers and State industrial workers, is not conceded by the Court. The Court is not satisfied that there is relativity between these two types of workers, as was decided by the Labour Court in LCR No. 6781 in 1981.
However, the Court believes that there is a basis for further negotiations on clause 3 ofPESPfor IBS workers. These negotiations should reflect the intention of Clause 3of PESP, i.e.,
- "Negotiations under this clause will take full account of the implications for competitiveness, the need for flexibility and change and the contribution made by employees to such change".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th May, 1999______________________
MK/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.