FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IARNROD EIREANN - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Executive Grade restructuring.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company and the Unions are negotiating change proposals for 236 employees in the Executive Grades who earn up to €50,000 per annum. These employees are deployed in administrative and line management positions throughout the organisation.
A number of local discussions took place and the issue was the subject of two conciliation conferences in April and May, 2002, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The Unions are seeking a pay increase in excess of 20% with S.I.P.T.U. claiming retrospection to the 1st of August, 2001 and the T.S.S.A. claiming retrospection to the 1st of September, 2000. In addition, a number of aspects of the Company's proposals are not acceptable to them. These include 5 over 6 or 5 over 7 day working, performance contracts/tenure of office, mobility clause, grade restructuring/regrading, four hours overtime per week without pay, flexitime and
voluntary severance. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th 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. The claim for a pay increase in excess of 20% is justified for the flexibilities that the Company are seeking. These employees have worked extremely hard since May, 2000 and were among the first groups to have been affected by the company-wide changes.
2. There is no requirement for 5 over 7 day working for Executive staff. This proposal was withdrawn by the Company at a meeting on the 8th of March, 2002, and was later re-introduced. The employees are also opposed to 5 over 6 day working, except in the areas where it is currently in operation.
3. When overtime is necessary the Executive staff are required to work 2 hours per day or 4 hours per week "freetime" without payment. This is grossly unfair and is unique to this grade. It means that they effectively work a 40 hour week, while the Clerical Grades work a 36 hour week. Flexitime should also be introduced for the Executive staff on the same basis as for the Clerical staff. Voluntary severance should be available for the Executives, as this facility exists in every other deal under the change proposals.
4. The Executive staff are seriously concerned about the issue of performance contracts and tenure of office. This has not existed in the company up to now and the employees believe that this is a major worsening of their conditions of employment. There were no difficulties in the past concerning mobility as people volunteered to relieve positions. Under the new clause, employees may be required to move long distances from home and remain away for long periods of time.
5. S.I.P.T.U. has no objection to the amalgamation of the grades as proposed by the Company, but believes that the 6 year scale should be reduced to 3 years. The T.S.S.A. believes that executive scales 1 and 2 should be regraded as the new Grade A, scales 3, 4 and 5 should be the new Grade B and scales 6, 7 and 8 should be the new Grade C. The T.S.S.A. is also seeking the inclusion of the 33 hour working week for certain Infrastructure Executives to be written into the change proposals document.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Agreement has been reached with approximately 30 different groups of employees throughout the organisation on new working arrangements. The new deals fundamentally changed their conditions of employment and embraced new work practices and flexibilities.A core aspect of these agreements was the change to a 5 over 7 day working week. In the case of the Executive staff, this requirement would be limited in its application, but it is necessary to meet customer and service demands.
2. In addition to the proposed change in the standard week, the Company proposes to create greater and more regular mobility where service/customer demand warrants it. The objective is to optimise the deployment of administrative and line management capacity and capability in order to serve our customers better.
3. A kernel constituent of the Company's proposals is the creation of a system of performance management. This system is the basis for a better future, with measurement and accountability balanced in a performance contract requiring certain agreed levels of work performance on the one hand and agreed training and development supports on the other.
4. In return for the proposed changes, the Company will rationalise the eight defined grades/salary scales to five. In addition, the current salary levels will rise by 15%. This is the same adjustment already accepted and implemented amongst clerical and administrative grades, who heretofore have been dealt with together with Executive grades. The claimants should not be treated more favourably than the clerical grades and their period of retrospection should not exceed four months.
5. The Company has issued a reasonable set of proposals in return for significant pay increases, despite a very marked downturn in the Company's financial position. The Company document dated 3rd May, 2002, should be accepted by the claimants on the basis of the pay increases offered.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the course of the hearing it became apparent that in their earlier discussions the parties failed to fully elucidate their respective positions on many core issues now before the Court.
This is particularly the case with regard to the Company's proposals on "performance contracts", mobility, tenure and/or rotation in management posts. It is also desirable that the Company clarify the extent to which it will require five over six or five over seven working and the range of positions to which this arrangement is intended to apply.
The Court fully appreciates the parties' desire to finalise the current negotiations. It cannot, however, make a useful recommendation until the Company has fully clarified its position on these matters and the Unions have had an opportunity to make a reasoned response. The Court, therefore, recommends that the parties should immediately enter into further discussions which should continue for a period of not more than four weeks and during which all necessary clarification of each party's position should be given. At the end of that period any outstanding issues should be referred back to the Court.
In order to assist the parties, the Court considers it desirable to set out, in general terms, its views on some of the major issues which have arisen in this dispute.
Pay Claim
The Court regards the claim for a 20% pay increase, with no commitment to tangible flexibility/productivity measures, as unsustainable. Moreover, in previous recommendations in relation to the current restructuring programme, the Court expressed the view that pay adjustments should have regard to previously established internal pay relationships. Applying that principle to the present case, it appears that a pay increase of the order of 15% would be justified in respect of those encompassed by the collective bargaining arrangements. The Court would not envisage any further cost increasing claims being conceded as part of the current discussions.
Performance Management
The Court regards the Company's proposals for the introduction of performance management systems, including performance related pay, as progressive and highly desirable. The utility of such arrangements is, however, confined to the more senior management posts and they are unlikely to apply to all of the posts encompassed by the generic term "executive grades".
Management should identify those senior posts to which it is intended to introduce performance management arrangements.
Performance Contracts
With regard to the Company's proposal on performance contracts, the terminology used in the Company's proposal may give rise to misunderstandings as to what is intended. If it is intended that this proposal will only apply to specific senior posts which are filled by internal promotion, the posts in question should be specified. The nature of the contract to be offered in such cases should also be clarified.
Fixed Tenure
In relation to fixed tenure contracts, as the Court understands it, this proposal is intended to apply to the most senior posts (which are outside the scope of current collective bargaining arrangements) and not to any of the posts covered by the present reference. This should be made clear. Management should also distinguish between the circumstances in which it is envisaged that fixed term, non-renewable service contracts will be offered and those where rotation of staff in management posts is intended.
Five over Six/Five over Seven Working
It is clear that it will not be necessary to roster all staff covered by the current claim on a 5/6 or 5/7 pattern. The Company should provide further details as to the circumstances in which it would be necessary to use this proposed facility.
Mobility
A facility to transfer staff to adjacent locations to cover short term needs should not be regarded as unreasonable. In other cases transfers should be by individual agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th September, 2002______________________
D.G./M.B.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.