FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION AMICUS - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE (MSF) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Restructuring proposals for engineers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns discussions on restructuring proposals in respect of Engineers who are paid salaries up to €50,000 per annum. There are 39 Engineers in this group and a further 46 Contract Engineers are also employed by the Company. The Company states that Engineers who earn more than €50,000 are to be negotiated with separately and individually as they are above the collective bargaining ceiling. This is rejected by the Unions.
The Company has offered a pay increase of 15% in return for productivity and flexibility measures. There are a number of elements of the Company's proposals which are not acceptable to the Unions. The issues were discussed at local level and were the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 2nd of May, 2002. As agreement was not possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of June, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 10th of September, 2002.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Performance Contracts:The words 'contract' and 'tenure' in the Company's proposals imply that the Engineers' current permanent contracts will be replaced by fixed-duration performance-based contracts, which will enable the Company to manage people out of the organisation if it chooses. The word 'contract' must be deleted from the proposals. It should be replaced with a 'Performance Statement'.
2.Mobility clause:Mobility forms a part of the work of most Engineers and is to be expected. However, it can have a significant impact on employees' personal lives and must be arranged with this in mind. The proposed clause should be redrafted to state that relocation due to planned activities will be preceded by consultation and agreement.
3.Retrospection:The claimants are seeking retrospection of the 15% pay offer to 1st September, 2001, as was paid to the Clerical staff, with whom the Engineers have traditionally been aligned.
4.Parity of treatment for Engineers above the notional collective bargaining line:The Company's proposal to offer a pay increase of 10% to Engineers who earn above €50,000, with the possibility of a further 15% based on performance, is not acceptable. These employees are categorised as senior staff, yet they have been offered an inferior pay proposal. The performance system has not yet been designed and may not come into operation for a couple of years, if ever.
5.Remuneration for Assistant Divisional Engineers (ADEs) for assuming line responsibility:The Unions deny that line responsibility forms a part of the duties of ADEs. This issue should be subject to separate negotiations with a view to regrading of Engineers for taking on this responsibility.
6.Reward for ADEs for contribution to the success of the Company Investment Programme:The Company has agreed that a special payment should be made in recognition of the claimants' contribution. The claimants are seeking a lump sum of €12,700. This matter should be addressed within a reasonable timeframe.
7.Parity of treatment for Contract Engineers:The Company employs a substantial number of Contract Engineers and will employ more in the future. The Company intends to discriminate against these employees by offering to pay them 90% of the settlement reached with permanent staff. This is unacceptable and they should be awarded the same basic pay offer of 15%, retrospective to 1st September, 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Performance Contracts:Performance management is an integral part of the Company's proposals for Professional Engineers. Each contract would describe the bargain outlined and, where appropriate, tenure in role. The Company is endeavouring to break from the past into a better future for its customers and its staff by implementing this new system.
2.Mobility clause:The Company proposes to create greater and more regular mobility of Engineers within their appointed departments and across departments and functions. This will facilitate opportunities for career development and will enhance line management capacity and capability. It will also improve service to customers.
3.Retrospection:The Company has offered a pay increase of 15% in return for the changes proposed. The period of retrospection should not exceed four months which other grades, such as the Clerical grades, received. Engineers also received salary adjustments in 1998/1999 following a review which was conducted by the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC).
4.Engineers above the notional collective bargaining line:Engineers who earn in excess of €50,000 are among the Company's senior staff. A number of them have indicated their wish to be negotiated with separately, yet the Unions persist in their inclusion in the general proposals.
5.Line responsibility:The Company sought clarification from the IPC as to whether or not the salary adjustments implemented covered line responsibilities. The IPC confirmed that line responsibility was indeed taken into account. This was included in letters of appointment to ADEs who were appointed since this clarification.
6. Within the context of Iarnrod Eireann modernisation a reasonable set of proposals have been issued in return for significant pay increases. The document dated 16th June, 2002, should be accepted without modification and on the basis of the pay increases offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that there is agreement on the level of increase to be provided to the group, and that the dispute centres on the detail of flexibility/productivity measures to be conceded.
Having carefully considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends as follows:
Performance Contracts
The first paragraph of the Company's proposal headedPerformance Contractsshould be amended to read as follows:
"Where Professional Engineers are promoted their contract of employment will contain an express condition relating to performance. This will describe detailed performance targets and measures on which reward will be built".
The Court recommends that the detail of how performance targets are to be established and measured should be the subject of further discussions between the parties.
Fixed Tenure/Rotation
The range of posts to which appointments will be made for a fixed tenure (where the post holder's employment will terminate at the expiry of a fixed term) should be identified by the Company. In that regard a distinction should be drawn between fixed tenure and periodic rotation of staff by way of lateral transfer between posts. In the case of the latter, there should be no objection in principle to the introduction of such arrangements.
Mobility
The clause should be redrafted so as to provide that relocation outside a five mile limit will be by individual agreement.
Retrospection
Retrospection should be to 1st March, 2002.
Engineers Outside Collective Bargaining
In the present case the Court is of the view that Engineers at all levels should receive the same basic increase. The question of a performance related element in the pay of those not covered by collective bargaining should then be addressed.
Line Responsibility of Assistant Divisional Engineers
The parties should have further discussions on this matter in accordance with the previous agreement referred to at Point 3 of the Company's letter dated 21st May, 2001.
Reward for ADE's in Relation to Investment Programme
It is noted that this matter is still under discussion.
Contract Staff
The same pay increase should apply to contract staff as applies to all other staff.
The full implementation of the Court's recommendations will require further discussions between the parties on performance contracts and fixed tenure/rotation. It is recommended that these discussions should commence immediately following acceptance of this Recommendation and should conclude within four weeks. Any matters outstanding at that time should be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th September, 2002______________________
D.G./M.B.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.