FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL GALLERY OF IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Proposals relating to the implementation of a Consultants Report
BACKGROUND:
2. In December, 2001, the parties agreed to a root and branch review of the grading and payment structures of the attendant grades. The review was carried out with the help of the Labour Relations Commission and a U.K consultancy firm. The dispute now before the Court concerns a proposal by management to implement the consultants' report which was carried out by T.B.P. International Ltd. This Report followed a review by them concerning the "Attendant Grades." The Report issued on the 28th June, 2002 and was followed by a supplementary Report regarding allowances which issued on the 2nd September, 2002.
Management states that the implementation of this Report is critical to the discharging of its public service responsibilities.
The Union rejected management's proposals to implement the Report.
As agreement was not possible the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Following a number of conciliation conferences no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in May, 2003 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 18th September, 2003.
MANAGEMENT'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The National Gallery of Ireland has a budget within which it is compelled to adhere to.
2 The Gallery has an opportunity to earn non-exchequer income by hosting international exhibitions. It is dependent on this extra funding.
3. Management is creating valuable employment from its own financial resources. The earnings of the workers concerned will not be affected by the restructuring as proposed in the Report.
4. The Gallery needs an efficient, effective, and flexible workforce. The allowance anomalies which exist must be addressed.
5. It is essential that the consultants' report is fully implemented. There will be no loss of earnings to existing staff.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union believe that management has cherry picked the various recommendations in the Report.
2. The proposals contained in the Report, in their current form, are detrimental to the workers' long term interests.
3. The proposals as outlined in the Report contain substantial productivity elements. However, the financial package on offer would have no value to the workers concerned.
4. Management propose a two Tier pay scale for attendants. Tier 1 for new recruits and Tier 2 for current staff. A two tier payment system will not work and is not acceptable to the Union.
5. It is proposed to eliminate all allowances and to consolidate 60% of these allowances into basic pay and to freeze 40% on a red circle basis to the current holders of these allowances. The Union will not accept this proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court against the background of a history of unsatisfactory industrial relations and management practices at the Gallery. This in turn led to the implementation of certain allowances, which the management now say were incorrectly applied, and the introduction of work practices or agreements which are restrictive and inefficient. In December, 2001, as part of the settlement of another dispute, the parties agreed to a root and branch review of grading and payment structures of the attendant grade at the Gallery. This review was carried out under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission with the assistance of an agreed firm of consultants specialising in human resources, job profiling and remuneration systems.
The consultants produced their report in June, 2002. In it serious anomalies, inefficiencies and deficiencies in the pay, work practice and management of the attendant grade were identified. The consultants recommended that those difficulties be addressed through a comprehensive restructuring of the attendant grade.
The Court has considered the content of the consultants' report and is satisfied that the difficulties which it highlights are real and substantial and must be addressed. The Court is further satisfied that the approach recommended by the consultants and their detailed recommendations are appropriate and soundly based. However, it is clear that the parties have not seriously engaged with each other on the implementation of the proposals.
The current impasse appears to have resulted, to a significant degree, from a concern on the part of the workers that the new pay structure could lead to a diminution in the earnings of existing staff. Management insist that this is not a possibility. In the Court's view that issue should be definitively disposed of and the parties should then commit themselves to cooperation in the implementation of the proposed restructuring. With this in view the Court makes the following recommendations:
- 100% of existing regular allowances should be consolidated in the proposed Tier 2 scale.
- Future increases, whether special or general, should be calculated and applied to those on Tier 2 by reference to the full consolidated rate.
- Subject to 4 below, the Union should accept the Gallery's proposals on restructuring and cooperate, including operational practices, and their implementation.
- The parties should resume discussions at the Labour Relations Commission on matters of detail in the proposals and on implementation. These discussions should be concluded by 31st October 2003.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th September, 2003______________________
LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.