FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHNSON BROS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Rate of pay for specific individuals, ( 2) 2% under P2000 and 5.5% under PPF, (3) Attendance bonus scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a sales, marketing and distribution company based in Walkinstown. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of Clerical and Administrative staff. The following issues are in dispute.
(1) Rate of pay for specific individuals
At present the Company determines the rate of pay for Clerical and Administrative staff by annual reviews based on individual and job assessment. The Union states that certain individuals are not happy with the increases they received. They were not adequately rewarded for the level of responsibility attached to certain roles. The Company states that it cannot deal with this issue on a collective basis.
(2) 2% under Partnership 2000 and 5.5% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
The Company reviews salaries on an individual basis each January.
The Company states that since 1997 the January increases included the 2% under Partnership 2000 and the January, 2000 increase included the 5.5% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The Union does not accept this and states that 2% under P2000 and 5.5% under the PPF should be paid over and above the January increases.
(3) Attendance Bonus Scheme
The Company operates an attendance bonus scheme where staff receive an extra week's pay in the summer and again at Christmas for 100% attendance. This is reduced for any days lost. The Union is seeking the elimination of the attendance element of the scheme or that the bonus be doubled. The Company states that the present bonus scheme is fair and acts as an incentive.
The issues could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of
conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held
on the 31st of March, 2000 and on the 2nd of May, 2000. As agreement was not
reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of
October, 2000, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Rates of pay for specific individuals
A specific number of staff were not adequately rewarded for their skills, extra work load and level of responsibility. Their rate of pay should now be increased.
2. 2% under Partnership and 5.5% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
The Union was not consulted regarding the inclusion of the 2% and the 5.5% in the January increases.
3. Attendance Bonus Scheme
The attendance element of the bonus scheme should be eliminated and if not the bonus should be doubled.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Rates of pay for specific individuals
The workers concerned have benefited significantly from the new pay structure.
2. 2% under Partnership and 5.5% under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
The Company has honoured its obligations under P2000 and PPF.
3. Attendance Bonus Scheme
The attendance bonus scheme is fair and reasonable and acts as an incentive in eliminating casual absences.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and oral submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to each of the Union's claims:
Increase in Pay for Specific Individuals.
The Court notes that the method of determining pay for clerical and administrative staff has evolved from one based on the application of an age related incremental scale, increased in line with national agreements to a system of annual pay reviews based on individual and job assessment. In general, the current system has benefited staff in that pay rates are now ahead of those that would have applied under the old agreement. Nevertheless, there is dissatisfaction amongst staff at the perceived lack of transparency in the current arrangements and the absence of Union involvement in determining the rate applicable to particular posts.
The Court believes that these concerns should be addressed by the parties agreeing a range of pay bands in respect of the various clerical and administrative functions within the employment. The rate within the band to apply to individuals should be determined by the application of agreed criteria, which as for as possible should be objective in nature. This should include individual performance, range of responsibilities and length of service. Within this arrangement future pay adjustments should, at minimum, be based on the application of national agreements.
Application of 2% Local Bargaining Element of Partnership 2000.
The Court recommends that the Union's claim for the application of this increase should be conceded.
Application of 1stphase PPF.
It is noted that recent annual salary reviews were inclusive of national wage agreement increases. This was not disputed by the staff concerned at the relevant time. In these circumstances the Company could legitimately have expected that the increases granted in January 2000 would likewise have discharged its liability under the 1stphase of the PPF, given that in every case such increases equalled or exceeded the amount of that adjustment. The Court therefore recommends that the Union accept that the 1stphase increase due under PPF was included in the 2000 review.
Increase in Attendance Bonus.
The Court recommends that the attendance bonus be modified to provide for 1 week's pay at mid-year and 1.5 week's pay at year end.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th November 2000______________________
GB/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.