FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LOCAL AUTHORITY & HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS (REPRESENTED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES BOARD) (AND HEALTH SERVICE EMPLOYERS' AGENCY) - AND - LOCAL AUTHORITY & HEALTH SERVICE UNIONS (REPRESENTED BY ICTU CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Parallel Benchmarking.
BACKGROUND:
2. Analogue Review:
The Public Service Pay Agreement associated with the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) provided that all outstanding claims by Public Sector Unions would be subsumed into the Public Service Benchmarking process. However, the Public Service Benchmarking Body did not deal with Local Authority or Health service craft workers. In recognition of the separate analogue system already in place for craft workers, separate arrangements were agreed in their case. These arrangements consisted of three stages as follows:-
Stage 1: a review of the analogue system and agreement on a new system which had been recommended by the Labour Court and was carried out in mid 2000 involving the selection of 20 new analogue companies;
Stage 11: one final review to be carried out under the old analogue system (this was carried out in late 2000) and;
Stage 111: a review under the newly agreed analogue system to be carried out in parallel with the work of the Public Service Benchmarking Body (this stage is the subject of this referral to the Court).
All stages were to be carried out by a Joint Working Group (JWG) with an independent chairman nominated by the Labour Relations Commission. The agreement provided that the Stage 111 Review would include, initially, factual research and analysis of:
(a) all aspects of the pay/reward structure and all conditions of employment of
craftworkers in the Local Authorities and Health Services and in the 20
analogue companies; and
(b) their existing roles, duties and responsibilities etc.
It was further provided that this research and analysis would be undertaken by independent outside expertise nominated by the Benchmarking Body. The Benchmarking Body nominated IMBUCON U.K. to carry out the work. Stage 111, Clause (d) provided that the outcome of this initial stage would form the basis for discussions at the JWG with a view to agreeing a revised craft rate of pay and any associated changes in work practices etc. Clause (e) provided that "in the event of the Joint Working Group failing to reach agreement the issue will be referred to the Labour Court for resolution".As regards the implementation of the outcome of the Review, the agreement provided that the matter would be discussed as part of the wider discussions on implementing the Report of the Public Service Benchmarking Body.
As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th February, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took place on the 31st March, 2003.
Analogue Companies:
The selected analogue companies provided the necessary information to Imbucon on a confidential basis in relation to pay and conditions of employment. It was agreed between the parties that new criteria for the purpose of establishing a craft basic rate of pay would be negotiated to replace the criteria set out in Labour Court Recommendation LCR6008.
Criteria:
Management state that the appropriate comparator for establishing the rate of pay of craftworkers in local authority and health services is the basic pay of craftworkers in the analogue companies. Both management and the Unions produced the results of their own independent investigations and exercises that were carried out to establish the rates of pay in the Analogue Companies on the "snapshot" date of 7th October, 2002.
The Joint Working Group (JWG) agreed the basic rate of pay in ten of the analogue companies but failed to agree a basic rate for the other nine companies.
Other issues in dispute and not resolved are as follows:
Automatic Bonus Payments:
The Unions state that there is an agreed document in line with the IMBUCON Report which allows for annual allowances to be paid in recognition of automatic bonuses in the 19 Analogue Companies. Management rejected the Unions' claim, stating that such allowances have no relevance to employment in local/health sectors and that it would be inappropriate to introduce a spurious allowance of this kind into Public Service employment at this time.
National Travelling Time:
The Unions claim that travel time should be paid to all craftworkers nationally in addition to any increase which would arise from the parallel benchmarking exercise.
Management state that travel time has been paid only to craftworkers in the four Dublin Local Authorities and in the Health Service within Dublin since the late 1960's. The allowance is one hour's pay per day. The Court is asked to reject the Unions' claim and to recommend termination of the payment subject to it being retained on an individual "red circled" basis for existing craftworkers in Dublin at the current cash level in each case.
Annualised Hours
The Unions' claim that this was the only agenda item where progress was made. It was agreed between the parties that a sub committee of the JWG comprising a representative from the HSEA and a Union representative would develop a model using a major Dublin hospital as a pilot.
Management state that where the annualised type salary includes an element for shift working, bonus payments or any rates of pay related to recognised certified higher levels of craft skills, it was agreed that these payments would be deducted in order to arrive at the hourly rate.
Incremental Scales/Credit
The Unions state that discussion on this item took place with the employers agreeing to produce proposals for the Unions' consideration. The Unions claim that there has been no further progress between the parties on this issue. In relation to other issues in dispute such as (a) Eating on site allowance; (b) The use of Contractors; (c) Staffing Levels;
(d) Rationalisation; the Unions claim that the employers proposals proved to be counter productive in that they bore no relation to the objects as set down in the February, 2000 agreement.
Agenda Items not discussed
The Unions claim that the following agenda items have not been discussed; (a) Promotions and Structures; (b) Training and Development; (c) Hours of attendance; (d) Other benefits; (e) Technology; (f) On-call, (g) Apprenticeships.
Modernisation /Change Agenda
In the Joint Working Group, management tabled a detailed document setting out the modernisation/changes that will be required as part of this agreement. The proposed changes seek to introduce a flexible approach to work practices through changes in structures, the ending of unnecessary demarcations and the promotion of a modern approach to work and technology. Management claims that the Unions have refused to discuss the modernisation/change agenda in a meaningful way.
Management states that it is essential that the changes proposed in the management document are accepted in full as part of any agreement and that the implementation of the agreement in relation to pay is directly related to the verified achievement of these changes in accordance with the terms of Section 26 - Performance Verification ofSustaining Progress.The Court is requested to recommend accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties agreed a list of nineteen Companies to be included in the review of the existing Analogue Agreement. The exercise was undertaken with the assistance of consultants who identified a number of elements in the pay structures in the various Companies that were additional to basic pay. These included items such as payment in respect of annualised hours, shift patterns and multi skills.Following the consultants report it was agreed that additional information would be sought separately by Union and Management in relation to pay in the various Companies.Arising from this exercise, agreement was reached on the salary to apply in the majority of Companies, but disagreement still remained on the figure to be used for a number of Companies.
Differences arose because of the interpretation of figures by the parties particularly in relation to changes that had taken place in Companies since the last review.Agreement has not been reached on:
(a) establishing the rate of pay under the parallel benchmarking exercise
(b) the modernisation agenda.
In addition the Court has been asked by Unions to consider claims for travel allowance and bonus payments. Bonus payments and travel allowances did not form part of the previous Analogue Agreement although there is a letter on record quoted by the Union in relation to the negotiations on travel allowance.
Travel Time:The Court has examined the letter quoted by the Union dated the 10th February 2000 in relation to travel time. While there is no commitment to concession of travel time the letter does appear to indicate that the claim will be examined in the context of the current examination of pay, structures and conditions of employment of craft workers in the Local Authority and Health Services and the Analogue Companies.
Pay:In relation to the pay structures of the Analogue Companies the Court has examined the submissions made by both sides and recommends that following figures be used for each Company:Company A €445.60
Company B €637.40
Company C €689.55
Company D €550.54
Company E €720.25
Company F €576.72
Company G €689.74
Company H €617.75
Company I €517.43
Company J €567.82
Company K €536.93
Company L €700.06
Company M €661.48
Company N €639.02
Company O €486.72
Company P €718.70
Company Q €499.47
Company R €535.66
Company S €615.63
________
€11,406.47
€11,406.47 � 19 = €600.34 New Rate
€512.75Old Rate
€87.59 Increase
As discussed at the hearing the Court would envisage that discussion would now take place on the change agenda required to achieve the payments as outlined. If the parties fail to agree on an overall agreement, then the matter can be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th May, 2003______________________
LW/BRFinbarr Flood
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.