AD0129

SUBJECT:
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation IR1390/00/GF


BACKGROUND:

2. In April 1989 Bord na Mona and the Bord na Mona Group of Unions agreed a 'Partnership for Progress Framework' which paved the way for the introduction of new team based systems of working on peat production operations. Each of these teams, known as Autonomous Enterprise Units (AEUs), are led by a core group of Team Leaders who are drawn from the craft, supervisory and general operative categories. The Autonomous Unit in Gilltown (4/5 workers depending on the season) is a combined production and transport unit and has been in operation since 1990.

A budget for each AEU is established prior to the commencement of the financial year each year, and the production/transport standards and the rates paid for labour, materials etc. remain constant within each financial year. The payment system has built-in fall-back guarantees of basic pay and additional payments related to the achievement of targets for the volume of peat produced. In the current year 2000/2001 the annual fall back rate for team leaders is £16,142, and the budgeted earnings for achieving the 100% target level is £26,561.

In 1999, Bord na Mona became a Public Limited Company, and the bogs under the former Horticulture Division, including Gilltown, became the property of Bord na Mona Energy Limited (Energy Limited).

Peat haulage in Gilltown is carried out by means of rail wagons which were originally 16 cubic metres (16 m3) but were extended to 21m3. In 1998. it was discovered that the wagons in Gilltown had a capacity of 23 m3. The work programme for Gilltown provided for the loading and hauling of 5,300 wagons of peat. This would have meant a budget of 111,303m3 when the wagon capacity was regarded as 21m3 (5,300 x21m3), but it translated to 121,900 m3 when it was accepted that the capacity was 23 m3, basically a 10% increase.

The Union made a claim (retrospective to April, 1999) in respect of the application of the newly agreed capacity of 23m3. The claim was referred to a Rights Commissioner, who stated in his recommendation:

" I would urge both sides to resolve this issue for the future with due recognition been given both to the additional cubic metres being transported by the group, and the workload."

Management made a proposal which, it claimed, in crediting the wagons at 23m3 would effectively increase the credits stock by 10%. They introduced figures (supplied to the Court) which showed what the financial impact would be for the year 1999/2000. (£8,499 to be divided between the 4/5 workers). The proposal was rejected and a further case was referred to the Rights Commissioner. His recommendation was as follows:

"I am satisfied the management offer is a fair and reasonable one and I am recommending that the claimants accept it."

This recommendation was also rejected, and the Union appealed it on the 6th of February 2001, in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of March, 2001, in Tullamore.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The original Rights Commissioners Recommendation gave due recognition to the additional cubic metres being transported and the additional work load. However, the second recommendation does not give due recognition to the additional revenue which is continuing to accrue to the Bord as a result of the miscalculation.

2. Management's offer does not give any guarantee of additional revenue to the workers. Although the figures supplied might appear to show additional revenue for the group by means of up-tonnage, there are a number of issues in the budget of the AEUs which can eat into up-tonnage bonuses e.g. fuel, spare parts etc.


BORD'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The agreed change in the recognised cubic capacity of the wagons has no impact on the workload of the units. They are not loading any more peat than before.

2. Management's offer would mean a significant financial increase for the workers concerned. The Rights Commissioner's second recommendation is fair and reasonable.


DECISION:

The Court has considered the submissions of the parties at the hearing and the subsequent clarification of their respective positions.

In all the circumstances of this case, the Court believes that the Company's offer is reasonable and should be upheld. The Court understands that the Union has certain reservations as to the effectiveness of the arrangement proposed in delivering a higher financial return for the additional volumes at issue.

Whilst the Court accepts the assurances of management that the proposed arrangement will be effective, it recommends that the parties monitor the situation and that the payment system be reviewed after it has been in operation for three years.





Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Kevin Duffy
3rd May, 2001______________________
SH/CONDeputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.