FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL CAR TESTING SERVICE REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRL) LIMITED - AND - AGEMOU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Wages and conditions of employment of Team Leaders.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early February, 2001, the Court investigated a dispute concerning pay and other issues relating to approximately 200 workers. On the 23 February, 2000, the Court issued LCR 16742 and, in relation to Team Leaders, recommended as follows;
No negotiations have taken place at conciliation on the position of Team Leaders and Clerical Staff. Following acceptance of this recommendation, the parties should enter into immediate negotiations on the claims made on behalf of these categories. These negotiations should proceed, if necessary, through normal procedures including reference of outstanding issues to conciliation and the Court".
Subsequently the parties held discussions under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the issues of pay, banking time, and administrative duties, but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 23rd July, 2001. The dispute was received in the Court on the 23rd July, 2001. A Court hearing was held on the 8th November, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Pay; The offer on pay ,made at conciliation in March, 2001, while agreed for recommendation by the negotiating team, was rejected by the membership mainly on two issues, firstly the salary offered of £24,000 which would not
be achieved until September,2002 was insufficient for the job performed by the claimants, secondly, it did not maintain the differential enjoyed by Team
Leaders over their colleagues and did not keep abreast of top line management increases.
2. As a manager running a test centre and also a qualified crafts person, the Team Leader would expect more than his current salary and most definitely expect
to receive more than the £24,000 on offer, which would not come into effect until this time next year. A craftsperson in industry generally, covering the same
type of hours and flexibility arrangements as those performed by Team Leaders, would receive in the region of £22,000-£32,000 and would not have the same responsibilities as Team Leaders in NCTS. The claimants would expect to be somewhere between the middle and the top of these scales.
3. Banking Time. There is very little allocation in terms of time or finance or planning being afforded to Team Leaders to perform their banking duties. The
Company must allow workers the time to perform this function, and also pay them
the expenses incurred in travelling to and from the bank and retrospection due to banking ,on three occasions per week, from 4th January,2000.
4. Administration Time. Team leaders in all of the test centres except the 3 centres in Dublin are expected to do administration work of the centre on a daily/
weekly basis. This effectively means detailed attention to the administration work,keeping paper work up to date, drawing up and implementing the
roster system which has been a great source of aggravation in recent times.
Time must be allotted to Team Leaders to complete these duties.
5. The Union has proposed that a number of test slots per day should be taken out of the Team Leaders work load, thus allowing them to concentrate and spend a certain period of time each day on this administration work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Pay. The Court has already recommended in LCR 16742 that there was no
basis for an increase beyond the harmonisation of pay. This cost has been
incurred by the Company and will, in a full year, increase payroll by nearly
£300,000 p.a. Despite this the Company is willing to look at the issue of Team Leaders' pay rates, but in the context of the role Team Leaders have to play
in the Company and not in any other context. The salary differential being proposed by the Company at conciliation, was accepted by the Union as a
basis for agreement in March, 2001. It is a fair and reasonable offer in the
context of the duties and responsibilities of Team Leaders.The Team
Leaders will continue to have access to overtime premium payments, and
also to additional income arising from any productivity scheme which may
be negotiated.
2. Banking Time. The Company has agreed to pay mileage where a Team
Leader is required to attend a bank and has agreed the appropriate rate for
the centre. Banking visits are kept to a minimum and in most cases it is only a matter depositing lodgements in a night safe. However, there would be times
when it is necessary for Team Leaders to go to the bank to get change. In this regard the Regional Manager has agreed to schedule slots to allow the Team
Leader to go at a particular time of the day if it is a situation he cannot go at any other time. These arrangements have been made without any difficulty.
3. Administration Time. The Company believes that these duties can be done during the course of the day with proper management of time and resources.
For example the Team Leader could ensure that he is not scheduled to
do the last test of the day so that while the other inspector is doing the last
test he can carry out some of his other duties. Also during the course of the
day, cars which do not turn up for test allows the Team Leader spare time
for other duties.
4. The Company is willing to look at situations which might arise, justifying additional time for the Team Leader . In those circumstances the option of allowing the Team Leader the additional time to do the work, which is all paid for in any case,
or to schedule out cars allowing them to have more time ,would be considered.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to the three issues referred by the Union;
Pay.
The Court does not accept that the elimination of the anomaly in pay between Vehicle Inspectors in Dublin and those in other locations can justify a claim for an increase in pay of Team Leaders, who were unaffected by the anomaly.
The Court recommends that the wage scale offered at conciliation should now be accepted subject to the following modifications;
Increase proposed on 1/9/2001, to be paid with effect from 1/6/2001.
Increase proposed on 1/9/2002, to be paid with effect from 1/6/2002.
Banking Time.
The Court accepts that adequate time should be allocated to Team Leaders in which to make bank lodgements. The Court also accepts that the costs, which they incur in travelling to the bank, should be reimbursed. However the time involved does vary significantly between Centres and in consequence a standard time allocation would not be appropriate.
The Court recommends that an appropriate time allocation in respect of each Centre (or group of Centres) should be agreed locally.
Administrative Duties.
The Court also accepts that a time allocation should be made in which administrative duties can be undertaken. As in the case of banking time, the level of administrative work will vary from Centre to Centre, thus making a standard allowance inappropriate. Again, the Court recommends that the appropriate allocation in respect of each Centre (or group of Centres) should be agreed locally.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th,November,2001______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.