FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COILLTE - AND - IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Payment of bonus for 2004, Annual leave entitlement of level 3s, Access of Level 1s to Performance Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's three claims are as follows:-
Claim A:In November, 2000, the parties reached agreement on the introduction of performance management and an associated performance related pay (PRP) scheme. The introduction of PRP was to be linked to overall Company performances, basically meaning that the bonus paid would depend on Company profits. Whilst no bonus was paid for 2001 or 2002 the parties agreed that a "Company element" of 3% would be consolidated into base pay from January, 2003. The Union is now seeking payment of PRP for 2004.
Claim B:In September, 2003, the Union wrote to Coillte seeking an increase in annual leave which was to be linked to an increase in the Civil Service following an arbitration award. Agreement was reached and the annual leave for Level 3 read as follows:"21 days rising to 27 days after 5 years in grade and 28 days after 10 years in grade".The Union believes that 29 days after 10 years is the appropriate leave in line with what applied to the equivalent grades in the Civil Service.
Claim C:In 1990 an integrated salary and career structure was negotiated including Level 1 staff. Level 1 is divided between higher posts, including Senior Inspector level, and standard level. During the 1990s Coillte introduced an individual based performance management and reward bonus scheme for senior staff. The scheme was available to Senior Inspectors on top of their graded salary. Subsequently Senior Inspectors accepted personal contracts and ceased to be paid in accordance with collectively bargained pay scales. In 1999 the Company extended the scheme of performance management and reward to all levels under the heading"Pilot scheme of performance management and reward". The scheme continued for 2000 and 2001. The scheme was re-issued in 2002 though without the word "Pilot". In 2003 the Company made an initial offer of personal contracts to all standard Level 1s, and an amended contract was issued in May, 2004. A small number of Level 1s accepted the offer and received a bonus for 2003. In May, 2005, the Union raised the issue of the payment of the performance bonus to those Level 1s who choose to stay on the graded pay scale. The Company's response was that the offer no longer applied to those who chose not to accept the new contracts. The Union believes that these staff are being punished by the withholding of the bonus.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th of August, 2005, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd of November, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Claim A:To date the Company has set no date to initiate a review of the PRP agreement of 2001. That agreement is extant and unless it is altered PRP is due for the financially successful year of 2004.
2.Claim B:There would have been no claim for increased annual leave unless the Civil Service secured an increase, and the outcome was based on the Civil Service outcome. Level 3s should receive 29 days after 10 years' service as did their comparators in the Civil Service.
3.Claim C:It is unfair that staff are being punished for choosing to remain on the standard grade, and it is contrary to all good industrial relations practices.
COILLTE'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Claim A:The PRP scheme was initially set up for a 3 - year period in 2001. It was superseded by a Framework Agreement in 2004 which encompassed a fundamental reappraisal of all pay, performance efficiency and organisational issues. As such, the PRP scheme is no longer operative.
2.Claim B:There is no basis for applying leave arrangements to Level 3s which differ from those applied to all other Coillte grades. There is no direct comparable grade in the Civil Service. Granting one additional day's leave to Level 3s would carry a substantial additional cost.
3.Claim C:The PRP scheme which was established on a pilot basis in 1999 continued to be represented clearly as such to the managers concerned. The decision not to continue the PRP option was signalled to managers from the outset when the option of moving to personal contracts was first mooted in 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:
Claim A - Payment of Bonus 2004.
The Court has consistently taken the view that a collective agreement remains valid and binding on the parties until it expires or is renegotiated. The Court is satisfied that the Agreement concluded in 2001 has not expired nor has it been replaced either expressly or by implication. It, therefore, remains valid and extant. In these circumstances, the Court recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
Claim B - Annual Leave.
The Court is not satisfied that there is a direct linkage between the grade associated with this claim and the Civil Service grade with which comparison is drawn. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Claim C - Bonus scheme for Level 1 Manager.
The Court does not accept that any sound basis exists for restricting the bonus payments at issue to those who opted for personal contracts. Accordingly, the Court recommends concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th December, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.