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 : ALL WATER SYSTEMS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
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. In March, 2004 the Union advised the Company that it had accepted a number of workers into membership and sought a meeting to discuss its members terms and conditions of employment. The Company in response stated that it had always dealt with workers individually and it intended to continue this practice into the future. Management stated that this did not affect workers rights to join a union but the Company did not intend to deal with the Union on their behalf. On the 15th April, 2004 the Union referred a number of issues to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) under S.I. No. 76 of 2004 (Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution). Discussions under the auspices of the Advisory Services of the LRC were not successful and the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Labour Court under Section 2 (1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001. A Court hearing was held on the 28th June, 2004. The hearing was adjourned to enable the parties to re-engage at the LRC, where they reached agreement on a grievance and disciplinary procedure. Agreement was not reached on two issues as follows:
1. Sustaining Progress Agreement (SP).
2. Implementation of pay scales.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th July, 2004. A Court hearing was held on the 6th October, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the application of the terms of the SP Agreement with effect from the 1st June, 2004 and all future agreements to apply in the normal way. However, given the likelihood that a rate for the job will be set and agreed due to this process, a pay review mechanism may continue to exist for employees. In this event and bearing in mind the claimants' right to a cost of living increase that is provided for within the SP Agreement, the Union seeks that, on an individual basis, workers be given the option to declare in favour of the terms of the National Understanding at the time of its ratification by ICTU or to participate with a Company internal pay review. The criteria governing the review must be agreed with the Union.
2. At the previous hearing the Union submitted to the Court contracts of employment, none of which provided the same rate for the same job undertaken. While the Company at the time advised the Court that it had introduced equal pay in the Warehouse setting the rate of €21,630 as at 19th July, 2004, no other statement was made in relation to the Warehouse increase.
3. The Company accepted that discrepancies existed in relation to field staff and stated a pay review had taken place and disparities adjusted. This pay review did not take place. When queried by the Union in relation to criteria used, Management cited discipline, attendance, timekeeping and performance. In response to the issue of performance no bonus system exists. There are no fixed minimum numbers of units to be serviced per day, therefore, performance is not an issue for pay. In relation to discipline, attendance and timekeeping these issues are appropriately dealt with under the Company grievance and disciplinary procedures.
4. The Union requests the Court to recommend that the starting rate of pay be set at €20,000; that the rate of pay for a fully competent service person should be €23,278.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has never applied the terms of any National Wage Agreements but applied a performance based pay/budget approach to pay reviews. Pay reviews take place on the anniversary of the start date of employment. In 2003/2004 the average pay increase for employees was 6%. This compares to the increase paid under SP of 4.7%. The Company does not consider that a change to the National Wage Agreements would be of benefit to workers.
2. The disparity of wage rates has been addressed. Salaries for all service personnel at recruitment are the same at €17,500. Staff will accrue a performance based pay increase each year, with defined targets set for each employee for achievement of same. Performance based pay reviews are the norm within the private sector.
3. The Company has introduced many benefits for staff. It has successfully dealt directly with staff and continues to do so. Benefits so far introduced and others all planned for the future have been initiated by the Company. The Company's grievance and disputes procedure provides for the Union to represent employees on a personal basis for grievance hearing on pay and other issues. Pay will continue to be determined through the performance management /pay budget system and not through pay scales as sought or National Wage Agreements.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Court notes the parties have reached agreement on a grievance procedure on their resumed discussion at the Advisory Service, thus there is no necessity for further comment or recommendation.
2. On the basis of further submissions from the parties, the Court also notes that as a result of a review of the pay rates obtaining in the warehouse, there is now agreement that the level of disparity has been rectified and this particular issue has been resolved.
3. However, the pay rates amongst the field service personnel remain in contention. The Court has carefully considered the parties' submissions in this respect and recommends accordingly:
(a) The Company proposal that a new starting rate of €17,500 be accepted with an accelerated level of increases to apply as follows, €500 after six months (€18,000), €1,000 after a further six months (€19,000) and a further €1,000 after a further period of six months to yield a pay rate of €20,000. These increases to apply normally for satisfactory performance of the duties required.
(b) With regard to the remaining pay rate disparities above these amounts up to €22,660, the Company should commit to reduce their number and remove their level of difference over a period of between two and three years.
(c) For the future going forward the Company should review their pay rates using their performance based assessment /pay budget approach, having regard to cost of living indices and/or the provisions of any nationally negotiated agreements which are generally applicable.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
13th October, 2004______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.