FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL & PUBLIC SERVANTS ( AHCPS) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Remuneration of senior managers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union claims that management proposes to (a) abolish senior management grades represented by the Union, and (b) to introduce individualised pay arrangements entirely outside of collective bargaining. It also states that management is in breach of the Postal Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 and of the Transformation Through Partnership (TTP) Agreement (and related side agreements) which were concluded in April 2001.
Management rejected the Association's claims. It states that the proposed changes are necessary to prepare for the liberalised and competitive market place. This is being driven by the E.U. and is part of a world wide process of liberalisation and the opening up of the markets to competition of the traditional public utilities such as telecommunications and electricity. An Post argue that it must transform itself to meet these new challenges.
Management states that it commissioned Hay Consultants to undertake a review of its reward strategies, policies and practices at senior management level. Following the review by the consultants, management concluded that the most appropriate salary structure was on individual job evaluation scores. Management claims that Hay Consultants recommended creating a new senior manager level with a market remuneration value, based on the market median rate of pay for each of the individual job scores. The Company would then be in a position to construct individual performance pay ranges around this median.
The Union rejected the Company's proposals.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 3rd and 18th of October, 2001 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th October, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 7th of November,2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The AHCPS believes that neither partnerships nor ordered industrial relations in An Post can survive if the Company is free to abrogate its agreement with the
trade unions.
2. The Company approach is fundamentally anti-union in purpose and intent. It could appropriately be called a "boot boy" approach to industrial relations with its
own management grades.
3. The AHCPS must be able to rely on the agreement it concluded with An Post. Future grading structures have to be negotiated through the Industrial Relations machinery
and, in the event of acceptance/acquiescence by the Association to individual
remunerations, the agreed collective bargaining - safety net framework must be available.
4. The Associations asks the Court to uphold in its recommendation the
agreements entered into with the Company as set out in the Transformation
Through Partnership (TTP) and related side agreements concluded in April, 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new proposed remuneration arrangement for senior managers are voluntary.
2. The Company remains committed to negotiating on a collective basis with the AHCPS for those managers who do not wish to opt for the individual arrangements.
3. The Company's proposals at the Labour Relations Commission addressed the stated concerns of the union for a "safety net".
4. Managers can remain members of the AHCPS who can represent them on grievance or disciplinary matters.
5. In respect of those managers who do not wish to accept the proposals, the Company will formally table proposals for a new remuneration scheme in the context of
the pay and grade review process which is already underway.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute concerns three issues.
(a) the Union's view that the Company is not complying with its obligations under the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983.
(b) that the Company has reneged on the recently signed Transformation Through Partnership Agreement.
(c) the rights of senior staff to have access to the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court on disputes concerning pay.
The Court notes that the central issue for the Union is (c).
In accordance with Section 16 (2)(e) of the Postal and Telecommunications Services Act, 1983 the Articles of Association of An Post provide that "the Company shall in consultation and agreement with the recognised trade union and staff associations set up machinery for the purpose of negotiations concerned with the pay and conditions of service of its staff". The Court is of the view that the Company has complied with the Act.
While the Company has expressed its view that collective bargaining arrangements would not be apropriate for new senior manager level, it is not withdrawing the machinery set up for the purpose of negotiations concerned with the pay and conditions of service of its staff. If any individual chooses to accept new terms which would preclude their use of that machinery in return for what is perceived to be a favourable package, that does not distract from the issue itself.
Similarly, the Transformation Through Partnership Agreement remains in place.
Staff opting for the individual remuneration package cannot be precluded from the use of the Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court. The Company does not have the right either under the Transformation Through Partnership Agreement or the 1983 Act, to take away that right from the worker. The Labour Court, when exercising its functions under the Industrial Relations Acts, is a Court of last resort and its role is to be available to workers and management as required. This stipulation should be removed from the Company's offer, the Company must have due regard to the statutory rights of all staff.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November, 2001______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.