FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : COILLTE TEORANTA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Non payment of phase 1 and phase 2 of Sustaining Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. Coillte was established in 1989, as a commercial state company charged with the responsibility of conducting state forestry and associated business on a commercial basis.
The Incentive Bonus Scheme (IBS) was introduced in 1958. It comprises two elements; basic pay and bonus earnings related to productivity of the gang and attendance. In May 1994, a draft Coillte/SIPTU agreement was concluded which provided for the introduction of production linked payment and the elimination of the IBS. This agreement was balloted on by the workers and rejected.
In January, 2003, the Company wrote to the Union confirming that they were developing a range of proposals aimed at eliminating the IBS. In September, 2003 the Company again wrote to the Union indicating that the continuing existence of the IBS with its associated high cost could not be sustained.
As no meaningful engagement occurred between the Company and the Union on this issue the Company was of the view that the workers on IBS were in default of the terms of Sustaining Progress and decided to withhold the application of the pay provisions of Sustaining Progress to those staff.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24th of February, 2004, having regard to Paragraph 1.10(iv) of Sustaining Progress and in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, with the parties accepting the outcome. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of April, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The IBS change process is and has been entirely separate from wage rounds.
2. Management's proposals for the elimination of the IBS scheme have not been negotiated with the Union. Offers are voluntary to each individual IBS employee.
3. The Union and the members, individually and collectively, are in full observance of the terms of Sustaining Progress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The elimination of the IBS scheme with its associated high cost in both direct and management terms cannot be sustained. It is a strategic priority for the Company to introduce efficiencies in all areas of its operations.
2. The Company is prepared to apply the terms of Sustaining Progress to IBS staff on receiving a firm commitment from the Union that it will engage in meaningful discussions.
3. Successive national partnership agreements have had the need for cooperation with change and for continued adaptation and flexibility in order to sustain competitiveness as cornerstones of their implementation. All remaining staff at Coillte have received the pay terms of Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute concerns the non-payment of the phase one and two of Sustaining Progress to staff working under the Incentive Bonus Scheme. The Company is prepared to pay the terms of sustaining Progress in return for the introduction of a Piece Rate System to the staff concerned. The Company sees such changes as being a normal part of ongoing change under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
Sustaining Progress provides for the negotiation of the pay terms in return for the co-operation of normal ongoing change and for continued adaptation and flexibility by the parties. Where there is disagreement as to what constitutes normal ongoing change, it provides for referral by both parties, to the Labour Court for adjudication, under Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, with the parties agreeing to accept the outcome, in advance.
Having considered all aspects of this claim the Court is satisfied that the Company's requirement as outlined to the Court, for the elimination of the Incentive Bonus Scheme and it's replacement by the piece rate system cannot be regarded as "normal ongoing change" within the context of clause 1.10(iv) of Sustaining Progress.
Accordingly, the Court does not uphold the Company's position.
The Court wish to comment on the problems, which exist in relation to costs and production levels, associated with the continuation of the Incentive Bonus Scheme. The Court is of the view that both parties should address these problems and that meaningful engagement should be undertaken between the parties in a spirit of making every effort to reach agreement at the earliest possible stage.
+
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th April, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.