FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CHUBB IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. National Joint Industrial Council (NJIC) Increases.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the sale, maintenance and servicing of electronic security products. It has five separate business divisions, each with its own general manager. The workers concerned are employed as service engineers in the Electronic Security Division.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim for the implementation of the NJIC rates of pay with effect from the 1st of December, 1997. In February, 1999, following a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, agreement was reached for the payment of the NJIC rates with effect from the 1st of January, 1999, including an increase due on the 1st April, 1999. It was also agreed that the parties would enter into negotiations with a view to resolving outstanding issues. Discussions took place but progress could not be made and the Union referred a claim for retrospection to the Labour Relations Commission.
The Union is seeking payment of the NJIC rate retrospectively from the 1st of December, 1997 to the 31st of December, 1998. The Company rejects the claim and has tabled a range of cost cutting items for discussion (details supplied to the Court). It argues that its position all along has been that the payment of the NJIC rate of pay could only happen in the context of a restructuring of the total compensation package for the 48 engineers involved and that prior to the payment of the increased NJIC rates, the Union undertook to negotiate a restructuring package in order to contribute towards the costs of implementing a 31% pay increase.
Conciliation conferences took place on the 10th of June, 1999 and the 30th of September, 1999, but agreement could not be reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th of October, 1999, under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th of January, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under a Company/Union agreement, the minimum rates of pay applicable to service and installation engineers are those laid down by the NJIC for the Electrical Contracting Industry. The Company has failed to honour this agreement on a number of occasions and the resultant dispute was referred to either the Conciliation Service of the Labour Court (prior to the Industrial Relations Act,1990) or the Labour Relations Commission. On each occasion, the Company confirmed its agreement to apply the NJIC increases.
2. In 1997, the Company accepted that it is bound by agreement to pay the NJIC rates. This dispute almost resulted in strike action and was only averted by the Company paying the NJIC increases from a current date, leaving the matter of retrospection outstanding.
3. Management has sought to link the payment of retrospection to the concession by the workers of a number of items sought by the Company. The Company's proposal involves the abolition of allowances and extra payments and would offset the benefits of any increase received. This is not acceptable to the Union.
4. The workers concerned are entitled to the increases from the due date under the terms of a formal agreement between the Union and the Company. The honouring of the agreement cannot be tied to conditions. In the circumstances, the Court is requested to recommend that the Company honour the 1983 agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Electronic Security Division is operating in an increasingly competitive marketplace. Its cost structure is too high and is well in excess of NJIC rates and allowances and is preventing the Company from securing contracts.
2. The productivity of its workforce is substantially below that of its competitors due to the unrealistic payment and time in lieu arrangements that have evolved over the years as follows:
(a) Public Holidays and substitute bank holidays which each generate two days off for four engineers per holiday, cost the Company £20,000 more than the statutory cost provision.
(b) Night Roster Duty (which generates an average of only three calls per night, some of which can be handled over the 'phone and occur before midnight) means that under current arrangements, the Company is down a minimum of one engineer every day.
3. Management is constantly frustrated and hampered in its efforts to recruit additional sub-contractors to meet the needs of its customers in the face of restrictive and costly practices that are a legacy of bygone years and have no place in the present competitive environment.
4. The substantial losses incurred in this Division of its business are unsustainable. Other employees within the group of companies are now seeking parity with the workers concerned.
5. The Company does not have infinite resources to support a loss making division and it
is unreasonable for the TEEU to seek pay retrospectively as well as into the future, while refusing to contribute towards the cost by way of increased flexibility and productivity.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to the issues involved in this dispute. The Union is seeking the honouring of a commitment given by the Company in June, 1983, to pay the NJIC rates for the Electrical Contracting Industry to their service engineers and installation engineers. The Court notes that the NJIC rates are currently being paid; the Union is now claiming retrospection for the period from 1st of December, 1997 to 31st of December, 1998.
The Court recommends that the NJIC rate retrospection should be paid as claimed by the Union. The Court accepts that such a commitment was given and should, therefore, be honoured by the Company. At the same time, the Court is aware that undertakings were made by the Union to enter into discussions on other issues relating to outdated work practices, which have not been adhered to. The Court views with concern the failure to deal efficiently with these matters, particularly in the light of the losses in this division as outlined by the Company. The Court recommends that negotiations should commence immediately on a process of eliminating such practices. Such a process may be referred back to the Labour Relations Commission, and should be concluded within a time scale of 8 weeks. The question of retrospection should not form any part of these negotiations. However, this payment should await the successful completion of these negotiations.
No offsetting of any other allowances should be taken into account when applying the NJIC rate and the retrospection due.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th February, 2000.______________________
FB/BCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.