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 : BANC TEC (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referral from the Labour Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a manufacturer and supplier of hardware and software support services to financial institutions and employs 22 workers. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Banc Tec Inc., Dallas, USA. In July, 2003 the Union accepted into membership four workers who were formerly members of another union. The Union sought a meeting with the Company to discuss a number of issues in relation to the workers terms and conditions of employment as follows:
1. Enforced change of contract and list of responsibilities
2. Annual salary increases, annual appraisal
3. Increase in employee pension scheme contribution.
The Company refused to engage in discussions with the Union and the issues were referred to the Labour Relations Commission under the provisions of the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. No.76 of 2004). Both parties participated in this procedure but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th October, 2004 in accordance with Section 2 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Court hearing was held on the 8th November, 2004. At the Court hearing the Union indicated that the issue in relation to Pension was withdrawn.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Job Title.In March, 2002 the claimants, in the Grade of Senior Customer Service Engineer grade received a letter stating that this job title was being revised to Field Engineer. The letter includes a revised list of duties and responsibilities. Management refused to engage at any level in respect of this proposed change. The Union asks the Court to recommend that the original contract remain in place until a process of negotiation for each member has been brought to conclusion.
2.Salary/Appraisal. (i) The Union has supplied details to the Court of increases that have been applied to workers from 2002 to date and compares these increases to those agreed under national wage agreements. Neither the Union nor the workers are aware of the criteria applied in arriving at this level of increase. There has been no consultation or agreement.
(ii) In 2004 a worker had very serious concerns with the proposed content of his annual appraisal. When he sought to have his appraisal appealed the worker was informed he was not entitled to be represented at his appeal by the Union. The issue remains unresolved.
The Union asks the Court to recommend that the shortfall in annual pay increase, identified by the Union, should be addressed and that a defined method of salary adjustment should be agreed going forward.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Job Title. Historically job titles for engineers working on customer services were
1. Customer Services Engineer and
2. Senior Customer Services Engineer.
Both of these job titles were changed to the new job title of Field Engineer. No changes were made to salaries or terms and conditions of employment.
2.Salary/ Appraisal(i) Each Team Leader endeavours to hold an annual appraisal with every member of the team. The Team Leader discusses the appraisal results with the Regional Services Engineer and he uses this information in conjunction with the percentage increase allocated by Corporate HQ as the basis for deciding/awarding actual wage increases to the Engineers. Each Field Engineer has a basic salary c.c.
€42,000 to c.c. €44,000 + 30% shift allowance + car allowance. In a national survey of pay rates in August, 2004 the comparator annual earnings for a similar job type are
€35,268. Each worker also has:-
BUPA Healthcare,
Fuel Card- unlimited private usage.
25 days holidays p.a.
Car parking + toll bridge / road charges reimbursed whilst on business.
These packages are inclusive of a worldwide pay freeze imposed by the Company in 2002.
(ii) The Company has no difficulty with the Union representing staff, in a personal capacity, at grievance and disciplinary hearings. However the Company does not recognise the Union for collective bargaining purposes.
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). The Court is satisfied 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
Change of Job Titles/Job Descriptions; Annual Pay Increases and Annual Job Appraisal and Increase in Pension Contribution. Progress was made at the Advisory Service on the issue of Pension Contributions and the parties accepted that this was not an issue before the Court.
The Court notes that the Union represents 4 engineers.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends as follows: -
Change of Job Titles/Job Descriptions
Three of the Union members had a concern regarding their change of job title. Along with the change of title, the Union claimed that this change significantly downgraded their job title, duties and responsibilities. The company were adamant that the change in job title did not in any way change their duties and responsibilities.
The Company indicated to the Court that it has no difficulty in AMICUS representing staff, at individual grievance or disciplinary hearings and in staff seeking the services of the conciliation service of the Labour Relations Commission.
The Court recommends that the individual grievances of each of the three engineers concerning their job title and job descriptions should be processed through the company’s grievance procedure, with reference to the Right Commissioner if deemed necessary.
Annual Pay Increases and Annual Job Appraisal
The Union claim that the pay increases over the last four years were out of line with national wage agreement. It stated that the criteria for increases granted under the company’s method of increasing pay was not transparent and that the claimants were not in a position to be represented at an appeal of their annual appraisal.
The Court recommends that in the absence of any other established or agreed method of pay determination, due regard should be given to the elements of pay increases provided under the terms of the national pay agreements in place at the time.
Having reviewed the information provided for all four claimants, the Court is of the view that claimants C and D (as listed in the company’s submission) have a genuine grievance with regard to their pay increases for 2004 as the increases did not have due regard to increases agreed at national level.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the claimants C and D should be allowed to process their individual grievances through the company’s procedures at local level, and should be allowed to be individually represented by the Union, if so requested.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd November, 2004______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.