FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - AN POST GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim for full implementation of terms of Sustaining Progress
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute betwen the An Post group of unions (CWU, PSEU, CPSU and AHCPS) as to the implementation of wage increases due under Sustaining Progress. The parties made comprehensive written and oral submissions to the Court. The following is the Court's Recommendation on the issues in dispute:
RECOMMENDATION:
In recommendation LCR18088 the Court proposed the appointment of assessors to report on the economic, commercial and employment circumstances of An Post in the
context of the company’s plea of inability to meet the pay terms of Sustaining Progress. Two assessors were subsequently appointed who reported on 26th May 2005. They concluded that the company could pay a full 5% increase under Sustaining Progress with effect from 1st January 2005. The assessors went on to maintain that the company cannot afford any further elements of Sustaining Progress, or the mid-term review, other than in the context of securing finalisation on rationalisation and restructuring requirements.
The company have accepted the assessors report and have paid the 5% increase recommended. The Union have not accepted the report and, for reasons which were set out in its detailed submission, urged the Court not to adopt its conclusions.
The Court notes that paragraph 1.10 of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress requires the Court to give “serious weight” to the assessors report. In practical terms this means the Court must be guided by the conclusions reached by the assessors in formulating its recommendation unless exceptionally compelling reasons can be demonstrated for doing otherwise. No such reasons have been demonstrated in this case. Accordingly the Court has adopted the report of the assessors in formulating this recommendation.
It is noted that the assessors have concluded that the company cannot afford any elements of Sustaining Progress beyond the 5% already paid other than in the context of securing finalisation on rationalisation and restructuring requirements. In that regard it was accepted in the course of the hearing that the company’s most significant outstanding requirement in that respect is in relation to the restructuring of the collection and delivery of mails.
In Recommendation (LCR18260) the Court set out comprehensive proposals for a new agreement on work practice change in collection and delivery. In the Court’s view, when that recommendation is accepted, and the annexed agreement is entered into between the parties, the company’s rationalisation and restructuring requirements will have been substantially fulfilled. In line with the assessors report it will then be possible for the company to address the outstanding elementals of Sustaining Progress. In that regard the Court is satisfied that recommendation (LCR18260) contains sufficient safeguards by way of monitoring and arrangements for final adjudication so as to ensure delivery of the measures provided for in the draft agreement.
The Court notes and accepts that an increase in the tariff is an essential element in the company’s overall recovery plan. This, however, is a matter outside the control of the Court and staff (other than an improvement in efficiency will undoubtedly assist the company’s case). The Court does not, therefore, consider it reasonable to defer increases on this basis alone if the main conditions for payment identified by the assessors have been met. The issue of an increase in the tariff is nonetheless a matter to be considered in the context of the company’s ability to pay arrears, as provided for later in the Recommendation.
The Court therefore recommends that on acceptance of Recommendation (LCR 18260), and ratification by both parties of the draft agreement annexed to that Recommendation, the following should apply in respect of increases in salaries and pensions:
The phasing of increases under Sustaining Progress, if fully implemented, would be as follows:
1st Part Sustaining Progress.
- 3% with effect from 1st November 2003.
2% with effect from 1st August 2004
2% with effect from 1st February 2005.
2nd Part Sustaining Progress.
1.5% with effect from 1st May 2005.
1.5% with effect from 1st November 2005.
2.5% with effect from 1st May 2006.
The 5% increase already implemented should be regarded as including the 3% due on 1st November 2003 and the 2% due on 1st August 2004, under the 1st part of Sustaining Progress.
The 2% increase due on 1st February 2005 under the 1st part of sustaining progress and the 1.5% increase due on 1st May 2005 under the second part of Sustaining Progress should be paid with effect from the due dates
Further increases should be paid as they become due.
Arrears / Retrospection.
The Court further recommends that retrospection of the increases recommended above to the dates on which they would have otherwise been due should be regarded as a liability due to employees. The amount due should be discharged when the company is returned to reasonable and sustainable profit and its financial and commercial circumstances permit.
The payment of the amounts due should be jointly considered by the parties at the end of the next financial reporting period (and at the end of each reporting period thereafter as necessary) having regard to the financial circumstances of the company. Payment of the retrospection can, if necessary, include appropriate phasing. In considering the payment of retrospection the parties should consider giving priority to amounts due on pensions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th July 2005______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.