FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Non-payment of lump sum to 25 job sharers.
BACKGROUND:
2. Following negotiations held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission in June, 1999, a productivity agreement was reached between the parties. Under the agreement the Company made a once off payment of £1,600 to all full-time staff in the clerical and executive grades. Job sharing staff received £800.
The dispute concerns the Unions' claim on behalf of 25 job sharers for the payment of £800 (already made) to be increased to the full £1,600. The Unions claim that the Company has not honoured the agreement. They argue that point 2 of the agreement clearly sets out that the lump sum payment of £1,600 would be made to all staff.
The Company rejects the claim. Its position is that under the job sharing arrangement, job sharers agree to share the duties and responsibilities of a single full-time job and are paid 50% of the salary applicable to the grade and the Company has administered the lump sum payment on a similar basis.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held on the 11th of August, 1999 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of August, 1999 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of October, 1999.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The lump sum payment was an inducement for the settlement of the Productivity/Systems and Projects (SAP) issue and was agreed on the basis of past productivity, implementation of the SAP computer system and future productivity. Job sharers have contributed to past productivity, will be involved in the implementation of SAP and will contribute to whatever future productivity arises within Iarnrod Eireann.
2. The agreement clearly indicates that a once off lump sum would be paid to all staff in the clerical and executive grades. In the circumstances the decision of the Company to exclude job sharers from the full amount is unjust and unfair.
3. Some of the job sharers in Iarnrod Eireann may be occupying jobs where their involvement with SAP could constitute the major part of that job. Therefore, their involvement in the implementation and use of SAP will be far greater than some full-time employees who may have little or no involvement with SAP.
4. Unions representing workers in similar employment with Bus Atha Cliath/CIE Holding Company have concluded similar productivity deals in which lump sum payments were made in full to job sharers.
5. It was the Unions' understanding that the £1,600 would be paid to all staff. The agreement provided for all staff, management did not indicate during the negotiations that job sharers would receive less than the full lump sum payment.
6. The Company claims that the issue of payment to job sharers is covered under the job sharing agreement. The job sharing agreement is the same agreement that exists in other companies within the CIE group. Yet in productivity and viability deals done with other companies within the CIE group lump sum payments have been paid in full to job sharers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Department of Finance Circular 3/84 states "in effect, that the pay and conditions of employment of jobsharing staff shall be 50% of that applicable to full-time staff". The claimants were paid 50% of the lump sum as they operate on a half-time arrangement.
2. The decision to pay the claimants the benefits of the overall productivity deal with its clerical/executive staff on a proportional basis is correct and fair. The Company in giving consideration to this claim has examined the position in other comparable companies and is satisfied that proportionality is the norm.
3. One of the arguments offered by the Trade Unions in support of their claim is that the Labour Relations Commission's proposal on which agreement was reached was silent on job sharers and, therefore, full benefit should accrue. The Company cannot accept this argument as it suggests that silence should always be taken as assent. This can never be the case as, apart from any other consideration, many agreements would fail the test of finite detail. This is particularly true where the parties to agreements rely on principles and approaches to issues established by custom and practice. In this case the principle of proportionality is well established by practice as well as the written word.
4. The job sharing agreement enshrines the principle of proportionality and to pay the full £1,600 would give raise to disproportionate Company cost in regard to its total number of staff positions and would give rise to a benefit disproportionate to the work obligations of the staff concerned set against the obligations of their whole-time colleagues.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions of both sides. On the issue of job sharers and their entitlements the Court upholds the principle of proportionality. However, in this case due to the ambiguity and misunderstanding which arose concerning the job sharers entitlement to the lead-in payment, the Court recommends that the Company should pay a goodwill gesture of £200 to the 25 job sharers involved, in full and final settlement, of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th November, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.