FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Introduction of P.B.R. payment system 2. Amendment of shift roster 3. Clarification of bonus system.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 18 workers employed in the Rail Transport Crew at Derrygreenagh, who supply peat from the surrounding bogs by means of a narrow gauge railway system to the power station at Edenderry. There are three issues in dispute:
- The introduction of a payment by results (PBR) system.
- Amendment of shift roster.
- Clarification of bonus system.
The PBR system is the main issue in dispute.
A number of the workers were formerly employed at the Croghan briquette factory which closed in April 2000. The Bord claims that all the workers concerned were told when applying for the jobs at Derrygreenagh that they would have to work the PBR system. The Union would prefer to continue with the present payment system which consists of (1) Hymac drivers' rate, (2) shift premium, (3) overtime payments and (4) a bonus payment. The Union is also seeking that a division-wide forum be established to look at a suitable roster.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 12th of October, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of October, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of March, 2001, in Tullamore.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Terms and conditions of employment for the workers should be negotiated between the Union and the Bord, not by management's discretion at interview.
2. The present system in operation is working efficiently. If the Bord wishes to change the payment system, it should be discussed at a divisional level.
3. The workers have co-operated fully with the Bord regarding rationalisation, down-sizing, flexibility, etc., yet remain poorly paid compared to rates in local authorities.
BORD'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All the workers agreed to operate the PBR system when applying for the jobs. This proposal was also discussed with the Union.
2. The PBR system has operated in other areas, and is the most effective method of working. The power station at Edenderry is a flagship operation for the Bord, which must be able to demonstrate that it can deliver peat in a cost-effective manner.
3. The Bord has at all times offered the Union the right to bring its own industrial engineering experts to test the validity of the standards set.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties to this dispute.
The Court accepts that Payment by Result arrangements are an established and generally acceptable form of pay determination within the Company overall. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider it reasonable for the Union to oppose, in principle, the extension of PBR to the workers associated with this dispute.
In the Court's view, the parties should make a further attempt to address the practical issues associated with designing and implementing a PBR scheme for Rail Transport operations. These discussions should continue for a period of not more than three months from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
In the event of the parties failing to reach agreement on any of these practical issues they can be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th April, 2001______________________
CON/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.