FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute arising out of An Post Restructuring Proposals.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue in dispute relates to the Company's recovery plan which requires major restructuring changes in employees' terms and conditions of employment. The Company claims that its Draft Agreement on Change and Productivity Improvements is essential in order to address the Company's deteriorating financial position. The Union claims that Management has taken a unilateral decision to implement change without agreement. On the 22nd June, 2004 the Union referred a complaint to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Court hearing was held on the 28th June, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's plan provides for very significant changes, including the reduction by 30% in management grades together with replacement of existing Level 3 grades with a new Level 3 single grade. Neither the restructuring nor the revised working arrangements, pay and terms and conditions of employment, or how surplus staff might be dealt with, have been agreed.
2. The Union has no principled objection to either a 30 % reduction in numbers or to the creation of a new Level 3 grade. There must be negotiations and agreement on matters affecting grading, work responsibilities, reporting relationships, superannuation, promotion structures and general matters of pay and conditions of employment. The Labour Relations Commission and the Labour Court, if necessary, should be involved prior to the introduction of such fundamental change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's recovery plan, communicated widely to all staff, is essential to stem the level of current losses, achieve financial stability and restore the Company to modest profitability.
2. The Company's Draft Change Agreement document has been the subject of discussions and the Company feels that further discussion is needed as a matter of urgency. Any unresolved issues can be referred to the Labour Relations Commission and, if necessary, to the Labour Court in accordance with agreed procedures.
3. The Company advised the Union of its intention to develop and put in place a new structure for management positions at Level 3. It was made clear to the Union that the organisation structure was not a negotiable item. However, the Company did engage in a process of consultation before proceeding to fill the positions at the new Level 3. The Company offered to extend the process to the 21st June, 2004. It could not accede to the Union's request to extend the time frame for a further eight weeks.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the Company is experiencing serious financial and commercial difficulties which must be addressed as a matter of urgency. It is also clear that the restructuring measures now underway are seen by management as an essential component in its strategy to restore the company to viability. On that account they are strongly of the view that the measures must be implemented without delay. It is noted that the need for change and restructuring is not seriously disputed by the Union.
In the Court's view significant change of the type now at issue is best introduced in cooperation between management and Trade Unions. In that context, since aspects of the restructuring now in contemplation will require amendments to existing conditions of employment a process of negotiations and agreement between the parties is necessary. Furthermore, in so far as other changes will impact on the legitimate interests of the staff concerned, there should be adequate dialogue between the parties on those aspects of the proposals prior to their final implementation. In that regard the Court is of the view that the stance adopted by the Union at conciliation is positive and can provide a realistic basis upon which the present issues can be progressed having regard to these general considerations and to the exigencies of time.
In that regard the Court recommends that the parties proceed as follows:
1. The Company should provide the Union with full information concerning the new structures proposed at Level III.
2. The recruitment process to fill Level III posts should be stayed.
3. The Union should agree in principle to:-
(a) a new structure at Level III, and
(b) a 30% reduction in numbers.
4. Negotiations should resume at conciliation on a new collective agreement and the method of selection for new Level III posts.
5. The negotiations referred to at 4 above should be completed by end July 2004. At that point, or if disagreement is earlier recorded, outstanding issues should be referred to the Court, which will facilitate the parties with an urgent hearing.
6. Having regard to the overriding need to bring these matters to finality within a reasonable timeframe the reference to the Court should be for final adjudication, which both parties should be committed to accept.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd July, 2004______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.