FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Special pay increase - eligibility of claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the admissibility of a claim by the Union for a salary increase for the Executive Officer (EO) grade in An Post, based on the restoration of the pay parity between the EO and Superintendent 11 grade which had been established by Arbitration Board Report No. 9 in 1987. That report found that the salary of the EO at the maximum point should be increased so as to achieve parity with the maximum point of the Superintendent 11 grade. Following Arbitration Report No. 9, the Union representing Superintendent grades concluded a productivity agreement with the Company under which productivity payments of 21% additional to basic pay, were made to Superintendents. The Union subsequently claimed that the 21% be applied to EO grade based on the relativity established by Arbitration Board Report No. 9. The Company rejected the claim. The claim was referred to Arbitration. T he Arbitration Board, having failed to achieve an agreed solution to the problem, recommended in November, 1990, a 10% increase for PSEU grades by way of an interim solution and left open for future consideration the question of internal relativities (Arbitration Board Report No. 23 refers). The Union sought to have the claim re-opened on the basis that the increase was an interim settlement and the Union is entitled to have the claim finalised. The Company rejected the Union's interpretation of Report No. 23. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 11th of December, 2000. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 4th of July, 2001. A Court hearing was held on the 11th of October, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In his findings in Report No. 23, the Chairman of the Arbitration Board stated "...........having failed to achieve an agreed solution to the problem, there is no alternative but to recommend by way of an interim solution a certain level of salary increase and to leave open for future consideration the question of internal relativities........." It is clear, therefore, that the matter has to be regarded as unfinished, and that, at some point, the question of "future consideration" remained, and remains still, open to the Union to raise and to have determined.
2. For a variety of reasons since this report, such as negotiations on the Recovery Proposals and the fact that, some time either after that process there was no third-party referral mechanism, given the Company's unwillingness to appoint a Chair to the Arbitration Board and the clear stated intention of the Company to refuse to deal with any claims on this matter outside the framework of the General Agreement, this matter has not been processed until now. However, the intention of the finding in the Arbitration Board Report is clear. The finding was an interim on which left over a final resolution to a later date. The Union is now seeking to exercise its right, in accordance with the Report, to bring this issue to finality.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim was first discussed at Conciliation in 1987, was subsequently referred to Arbitration and a finding was given by the Arbitration Board in November, 1990. There is no provision within the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for an interim finding. Such a provision would have undermined the integrity of the Scheme, creating the potiential for claims to be re-entered on an open-ended basis leading to significant pay instability and industrial relations chaos. It would also severely undermine the viability of the business where almost 70% of total costs are pay costs and every 1% increase in pay costs the Company £3 million.
2. The Union was free to lodge a further claim at any time. It was only because the Union was precluded from doing so under National Wage Agreements that it is seeking to have the Arbitration finding interpreted as an interim one.
3. There has been a significant lapse in time since the matter was dealt with by the Arbitration Board.
4. It would run contrary to the conduct of stable industrial relations that a hearing could stand adjourned for several years and then be reconvened to re-hear an old claim against a radically different organisational, financial and competitive background.
5. The Company is committed through the Transformation Through Partnership Agreement to a pay and grade review. This would provide the Union with the opportunity to raise its concerns to this and all other relevant issues within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of the claim. The Court is of the view that the claim as put forward by the Union is a new claim and as such is precluded by the cost increasing terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. However, as the pay of all grades is now the subject of review under the Transformation Through Partnership Agreement, the Court is of the view that this claim should be processed through that forum.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd October,2001______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.