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: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Higher duty payment and overtime payment terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns approximately 590 clerical staff. There are 2 elements to the claim which remain unresolved since negotiations between the parties on a "New Deal" which concluded in February, 2002. The first is for a higher duty payment for clerical staff who "act up" in a higher grade. At present an individual only receives the higher duty payment after they have worked for 2 weeks in the higher grade. The Unions are seeking that the higher payment should start from the first day of taking on the higher duties. The second issue concerns overtime payments. At present, the first hour of overtime is paid at time plus one quarter with subsequent hours paid at time plus one half. The Unions are seeking that the first hour should also be paid time plus one half.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of June, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of October, 2003.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All other grades, except clerical, are paid the appropriate higher rate from day one when carrying out higher duties. It is unfair that clerical staff should be expected to take on extra duties, some of which have considerable responsibilities, without the appropriate pay.
2. Clerical staff feel that they are being penalised because of their flexibility and co-operation in the past. There has been very little industrial unrest involving this group. No other grade has a distinction between payment for the first and subsequent hours of overtime.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both claims are cost increasing under the National Pay Agreements.
2. The parties reached agreement on a "New Deal" for clerical staff in 2002. A number of changes were implemented, and the pay agreement provided for a 15% increase in basic pay (plus a subsequent increase in overtime payments for clerical staff.)
3. The current overtime agreement exists since 1973 and takes account of the higher rate of pay applicable to clerical staff relative to other grades.
4. The present arrangements for clerical staff acting up are intended to deal with long-term absences. However, it should be noted that many clerical workers are never asked to act up in a higher grade.
RECOMMENDATION:
An agreement for clerical staff was negotiated between the parties in 2001, which yielded increases of a minimum of 15%. The issues before the Court were the subject of these negotiations but were not conceded as part of the deal. The Unions are now pursuing these matters as separate claims.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that the claims are cost increasing and, consequently, are debarred under the terms of Sustaining Progress. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.