FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : METEOR MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referral from Labour Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was formed in 1997 for the purpose of obtaining the third mobile license in Ireland. It employs approximately 60 call centre agents on a full or part-time basis.
The issue brought before the Court by the Union concerns the pay for call centre agents. A pay freeze has been operating since 2003 and staff are concerned that they are not part of any pay structure. The Company does not apply Sustaining Progress nor has it applied any previous pay agreements. Pay increases are based on appraisals or benchmarking and it is extremely difficult to ascertain the criteria that are used.
The Company implemented the pay freeze in January, 2003 due to economic pressures, staff were not consulted. Bonuses were maintained during this time. During the first quarter of 2004 all positions were benchmarked against the market median and this showed that many salaries were still above the market median despite the pay freeze. Benchmarking will now take place annually and pay will also be determined through the Company's performance management system.
- The Union referred the issue to the Labour Relations Commission under the enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (SI 76/2004) on 29th March, 2004. No resolution could be found to this issue and both parties agreed to refer the issue to the Labour Court for an investigation of the dispute under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of June, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 (the Acts). Both parties indicated to the Court that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Acts were fulfilled in this case and that the dispute was properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
This dispute has been referred to the Court following the failure of the parties to reach agreement in relation to the matters at issue at the Labour Relations Commission under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004).
Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action, which should be taken, having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, in the employment concerned.
Utlising the provisions of SI. 76 of 2004 the Union submitted a list of claims to the Labour Relations Commission. These related to
bank holidays/public holidays, bonus, final warnings, union recognition, pay, annual leave and consultation. Progress was made on a number of issues and the parties decided that the only issue which required referral to the Court under section 2(1) of the Acts is the issue of pay. It is accepted by both sides that a question relating to the payment of overtime premia was raised in the context of pay, so the Court will proceed to deal with this issue. In its submission to the Court, the Union indicated that matters concerning annual leave and individual disciplinary action would be dealt with under the company’s grievance and disciplinary procedures. This was accepted by the company.
The Court notes that the Union represents approximately 60 call centre agents.
Pay
The Union submitted to the Court that the company had implemented a pay freeze since January 2003 and had not applied pay increases in line with national wage agreements. This has given rise to concern that the company are not operating any formal pay structure. In addition the Union state that some staff had no increases in pay since year 2000. Therefore, the Union is seeking increases under Sustaining Progress to be applied currently and retrospectively, and the application of any future national pay agreements.
The company maintained that the annual review of salaries conducted through a Benchmarking System of companies in the telecommunications and IT sector, is a valid pay review system and that the pay freeze did not cause all salaries to fall below the market median, many salaries remained above the median.
It held that all positions would be benchmarked annually in future. Pay will also be determined through performance in line with the Company's performance management system.
The Company stated that its approach to pay and benefits is a transparent one.
Overtime
The Union stated that the company reduced the rate of overtime premia paid; instead of being paid time plus one half for the first four hours in any week, and double time thereafter, the company changed it to time plus one half on a daily basis and double time thereafter.
The company indicated that the original method was an error, which was subsequently rectified.
Recommendation
The Court has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations. It has also had regard to the entirety of labour relations practices engaged in by the employer, as they were outlined to the Court in the course of the investigation. The Court has also had regard to the labour relations practices engaged in by associated employers, as it is required to do by Section 2(2) of the Act.
The following are the recommendations of the Court: -
Pay
The Court notes that the rates of pay paid in the company are not an issue before the Court - the issue of a formal pay review structure is before the Court.
The Court recommends that a payment of 2% in line with the last phase of Sustaining Progress should be paid with effect from 1st April 2004 and that increases in line with the terms of the new national wage agreement should apply from 1st July 2004. This wage adjustment should be considered as a basic entitlement.
Overtime
Having reviewed the terms of company’s overtime policy, the Court is satisfied an error had been made and that the current arrangement is in line with the terms of its policy and in line with labour relations practices generally.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th July, 2004______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.