FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - SDS - AND - COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION (CWU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Issues arising from the closure of SDS.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a dispute between An Post and the Communications Workers Union regarding the Staff Impact Issues arising from the Board's decision to integrate the parcels business SDS, back into An Post. This decision was taken by the board at its meeting in July 2004 following a long and detailed review of the future of the parcels operation. The issues could not be resolved, therefore, the parties agreed to refer the matter to the Labour Court on the 8th February, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th February, 2005. An Interim decision on the identified and agreed "Local issues" was issued on the 14th February, 2005. The following is the Court's recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court concern the outstanding issues arising from the reintegration of SDS into An Post as a result of the decision to close SDS. The case was referred by both parties to the Court under Section 20 (2) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. The case emerged following a statement issued by the NIB dated 26th January 2005, which stated: -
- “In the light of the national importance of the postal services and the present threat of major disruption, and of the offer by the Labour Court to hold talks on SDS reintegration on 11th February, the outcome of which both parties would abide by, the body calls on both parties to suspend industrial action and lift suspensions in order to allow progress to be made”.
The decision to reintegrate the parcels business into An Post was taken in July 2004. The Union stated to the Court that this decision was without consultation, discussion or agreement with the Union. Throughout the process of the negotiations, the Union had expressed its concerns on the overall commitment of the Company in respect of the future growth of the SDS business.
The Company is of the view that the Union refused to face up to the economic realities facing SDS, that it is attempting to thwart the Company in its implementation of the Board’s decision. All other Unions in An Post have accepted that it is going ahead and have agreed a process with the Company on addressing staff impact issues.
The Union responded that it had co-operated fully with the process and at discussions in December 2004 a number of issues were identified that crossed over into Collection and Delivery. The Company stress that there would be no precedent established arising from the resolution of the SDS staff impact issues.
The Union in its submission, requested the Court to consider the setting up of a Management Union Partnership whose terms of reference would be to promote the parcels and express delivery services and to exploit economic and profitable business opportunities as they arise.
The issues before the Court can be classified as follows: -1. Substantive Issues relating to the reintegration of SDS into An Post – identified as relating to Change Allowances; Variable Contracts; Income Protection; Performance Related Pay; Duty Competitions; Clerical Review; Voluntary Severance/Voluntary Early Retirement; Sustaining Progress; Resource Centre/Surplus Staff; Owner Driver Safety Net; Management Levels in Dublin; Suspensions.
- These included “Cross Over Issues” - i.e. issues which are common to both the closure of SDS and the reintegration of the parcels business into An Post, and to the New Collection and Delivery Agreement which are the subject of a report by a Technical Group set up by the Labour Court in Recommendation No: 18088. The issues identified by the parties as Cross Over Issues were as follows: -
- It was accepted, by both parties that these issues would be dealt with under this recommendation only in so far as they affect the parcels business.
The Union has informed the Court that the lack of information on the rationale used by the Company in arriving at the forecasted core volume figures is preventing them from negotiating a resolution on the outstanding ‘local’ issues. The Court recommends that An Post should share with CWU on a confidential basis (on the same term as that recommended by the NIB on 16th August 2004), the details of the rationale for the forecasted core volume information underpinning the Company’s decisions on staffing levels as outlined in Appendix 9 of its submission to the Court hearing. The Court expects that the parties should finalise agreement on all Local Issues by 28th February 2005”.
Change Allowances
Change Allowances were introduced as part of the New SDS agreement of May 2003 which stated that“a change allowance of 12.5% of basic pay shall apply on the basis that it is a fully inclusive payment in respect of co-operation with all agreed administrative and operational changes required to satisfy the evolving needs of SDS and its customers”. The change allowance applied to grades that obtained a post in SDS under the revised working arrangements.
A separate change allowance set at 9.5% of basic pay shall apply to Dublin Postal Drivers“on the basis that it is a fully inclusive payment in respect of all agreed operational changes required to satisfy the evolving needs of existing and new customers”The allowance is not paid during period of sick leave. It is a pensionable allowance.
The Company proposed the following in relation to the Change Allowance: -
-existing employees to be paid the change allowance that applies in the area they are being assigned to;-where an employee is being assigned to an area in which there is no change allowance, he/she will retain his/her current allowance on a personal to holder basis, until such time as a change allowance is introduced in the area.
The Union oppose this proposal as some staff may loose out. It proposed that all staff should retain the allowance currently being paid to them, on a personal to holder basis.
The Court recommends concession of the Union’s claim.
Change Allowance for Existing Staff
A number of areas were identified by the Union where the change allowance was not being paid and the Union sought its application, viz:
- Fleet Manager and Superintendent 1. Mails – both of these employees have fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 12.5% allowance and sought application of the allowance backdated to 15th September 2003, the implementation date of the SDS agreement.
The Court recommends that the change allowance should be paid to the claimants on a personal to holder basis.
Change Allowance for Existing Surplus Staff
The Union sought the application of the change allowance to existing surplus staff that were not assigned to positions in SDS, following the June 2003 restructuring programme, as they were surplus to requirements. The Company’s position on each of these claimants is that the SDS agreement clearly sets out that only those employees who obtained a job in “New SDS” would be eligible for the change allowance.
- Five Post Office Clerks in Dublin - these employees have fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 12.5% allowance and sought application of the allowance backdated to 4th August 2003, the implementation date of the clerical element of the SDS agreement. The Union state that they were working along side colleagues doing the same duties, using the same technology and working the new arrangements but receiving 12.5% less pay.
The Company’s position is that these clerks did not obtain a job in the assignment process.
The Court recommends that the change allowance should be paid to the claimants on a personal to holder basis.
- Three/Four Postal Sorters in Dublin - these employees have fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 9.5% allowance. The Union state that they were working along side colleagues doing the same duties, using the same technology and working the new arrangements but receiving less pay.
The Union point out that these Postal Sorters were previously in receipt of the allowance from a previous agreement on the introduction of Team Working into SDS, however, the rate was never uprated. The Union seek the uprated rate of 9.5% allowance backdated to 15th September 2003, the implementation date of the SDS agreement.
The Court recommends that the allowance should be uprated to take account of national pay agreements, with retrospective effect from 15th September 2003 for these claimants.
- Two Drivers in Dublin - these employees have fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 12.5% allowance and sought application of the allowance backdated to 15th September 2003, the implementation date of the SDS agreement. The Union state that they were working along side colleagues doing the same duties, using the same technology and working the new arrangements but receiving 12.5% less pay.
The Court recommends that the change allowance should be paid to the claimants on a personal to holder basis.
- One Post Office Clerk in Cork - Following a restructuring and review process in Cork, which provided for reduced POC staffing levels from 5 to 2 as a consequence a change allowance of 12.5% was agreed and paid to the remaining staff members and all staff moved to Littleisland. The POC concerned with this claim remained in SDS in Cork and was not paid either the change allowance or the travel and subsistence allowance. The Union stated to the Court that a commitment was given in his case that the allowance would be paid.
This employee has fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 12.5% allowance and sought application of the allowance backdated to 15th September 2003, the implementation date of the SDS agreement. The Union also sought application of the travel and subsistence monies paid. The Union state that he was working along side colleagues doing the same duties, using the same technology and working the new arrangements but receiving 12.5% less pay.
The Court recommends concession of the application of the travel and subsistence monies claim for this Post Office Clerk and recommends that he should be paid the change allowance, backdated to 15th September 2003.
- Four/Five Postpersons in Portlaoise - implementation of the SDS agreement in Portlaoise resulted in four/five surplus Postpersons, the Company refused to transfer them out of SDS and instead retained them on full range of SDS duties.
These employees have fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 12.5% allowance and sought application of the allowance backdated to 15th September 2003, the implementation date of the SDS agreement. The Union state that they were working along side colleagues doing the same duties, using the same technology and working the new arrangements but receiving 12.5% less pay.
The Court notes that resulting from the implementation of the SDS agreement, four/five Postpersons will be surplus to requirement in Portlaoise. The Court recommends that while they are retained on SDS duties the claimants should be paid the change allowance and that payment should be backdated to 15th September, 2003..
- Letters Distribution Network (LDN) Drivers in Athlone (9 drivers) and Portlaoise (5 drivers) – these drivers transferred to SDS as a result of an agreement in November 2002. When new staffing levels were agreed as part of the ‘New SDS’ agreement in May 2003, a duty competition was held, these drivers were retained in SDS doing both SDS and LDN duties, but have not been paid the change allowance.
These drivers have fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 12.5% allowance and sought application of the allowance backdated to 15th September 2003, the implementation date of the SDS agreement. The Union state that they were working along side colleagues doing the same duties, using the same technology and working the new arrangements but receiving 12.5% less pay.
The Company’s position is that there is no case for their inclusion in the staff assignment process. The work they perform is wholly related to the mails transport element of An Post’s business and there is no impact on them from the integration of parcel deliveries. They effectively left SDS on the implementation of the SDS agreement of 2003.
The Court understands that the bulk of their duties are Letterpost duties and therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim for the payment of the change allowance.
- Network Drivers in Limerick–following agreement in Limerick, the drivers concerned who had been Letterpost staff prior to the SDS agreement, transferred to SDS where they operate the SDS Network and transfer parcels from Limerick to Dublin, so that they would receive the agreed change allowance of 12.5% the work that they do is exclusively SDS work and similar drivers in Galway receive the change allowance.
These drivers have fully co-operated with all the agreed administrative and operational changes required for the payment of the 12.5% allowance and sought application of the allowance backdated to 15th September 2003, the implementation date of the SDS agreement. The Union state that they were working along side colleagues doing the same duties, using the same technology and working the new arrangements but receiving 12.5% less pay.
The Court understands that their duties are exclusively SDS duties and therefore, the Court recommends concession of the claim for the payment of the change allowance on a personal to holder basis.
Claim for Protection of Earnings – Loss of Overtime Earnings for Contract Overtime and Loss of Allowances
The Union sought protection of earnings on a personal to holder basis, for those staff who will lose contracted overtime earnings, as the New SDS agreement provides for variable contracts from 37.5 hours up to 47.5 hours. The Company stated that overtime will be worked by employees in the integrated parcels operation as required and as determined by management, but that it will no longer require contracted overtime. It stated that in order to address the future competitive challenges facing the parcels business and An Post, it cannot afford to pay for loss of income.
The Unions is also looking for the retention of identifiable allowances, which were fully pensionable. The Company stated that where staff are "physically required at times which attract the various types of allowances", the terms and conditions of these allowances will continue to be applied.
The Court notes management’s commitment to continue to apply the allowances where staff are “physically required at times which attract the various types of allowances”. In respect of the Union’s claims, the Court recommends application of protection of earnings, as already agreed in the Transformation Through Partnership Agreement (TTP) under section 9.1.4 “Income Protection Schemes”.
Claim for Protection of Earnings –Performance Related Pay
The Union seek the retention of the Company’s Performance Related Payment which was introduced following the automation of SDS and is a lump sum payment paid to staff depending on the number of parcels sorted above a threshold - overtime hours worked are deducted from the pool before payment is made.
The Company state that this arrangement will no longer be required in the integrated operation.
The Court is of the view that as the SDS parcels business is being integrated into An Post and as the thresholds are no longer applicable, then there are no grounds for the retention of the Company’s Performance Related Payment.
However, the Court recommends application of protection of earnings, as already agreed in TTP under section 9.1.4 “Income Protection Schemes” for the loss of the bonus payment.
LDN Staff in Portlaoise and Athlone
These drivers transferred to SDS as a result of an agreement in November 2002.When new staffing levels were agreed as part of the ‘New SDS’ agreement in May 2003, a duty competition was held, these drivers were retained in SDS doing both SDS and LDN duties. The Union maintain that they are the only staff excluded fromapplying for posts in the Mail Centres. They should have the option to apply for the new duties or avail of the VS/VER.
The Company deny that they are the only staff excluded fromapplying for posts in the Mails Centres, SDS drivers were also excluded. The Company seek to exclude these drivers from the initial staffing process.
The Court recommends that these drivers should have the option to apply for posts in the Mails Centres, subject to “the criteria agreed between the parties, including length of service”.
Customer Services Unit
The Union seek the completion of the Clerical Pay and Grade Review, which is currently underway under the auspices of the LRC before Clerical posts are let go under the VS/VER schemes. The review completion date was set at June 2002. Further efforts have recently been made to seek progression on this review.
The Company wish to merge the letters and the parcels sections of the Customer Services Unit, which will result in a staffing surplus in this area. The required number of staff have already expressed their wish to exit on VS/VER. The Clerical Pay and Grade Review is completely separate to the closing of SDS and the reintegration process.
The Company state that the Customer Service Department VS/VER schemes should apply to all Customer Service staff under the now fully integrated and fully flexible staffing arrangements within the Department.
The Court recommends that the Clerical Pay and Grade Review currently underway under the auspices of the LRC, should be completed not later than the end of April 2005.
Voluntary Severance/Voluntary Early Retirement
The Company wish to have voluntary severance confined in the first instance to staff working in SDS, with selection based on the least cost to the Company. The Union seek to have the options open to all staff across the Company’s operations and that the most senior staff should have first option, as was the tradition in the Company.
Staff were required to make application under the VS/VER by 14th January 2005 and their decision was irreversible. The Union believes this to be grossly unfair in that staff should not be required to make a final decision until all of the necessary information is available and were therefore not willing to allow employees to go forward for VS/VER. It points out that this is contrary to the Transformation Through Partnership agreement.
The Company seek to allow all those employees who were prevented by the Union from applying for either VS/VER scheme or for jobs in the reintegrated parcels operation to be given the opportunity to submit their application and be considered as part of the initial staffing and assignment process.
The Court notes that in the Customer Service Department, the Company are willing to apply VS/VER schemes to all Customer Service staff. Therefore, the Court recommends that the VS/VER options should be open to all staff across the Company’s operations on the basis of seniority.
Application of VS/VER
- Post Office Clerks and Management Grades - there will be a surplus of POC’s and Managers due to the re-integration of the parcels business into An Post. The Union seek the application of the VS/VER schemes to all POC’s and Managers throughout Dublin on a seniority basis, and not just to those affected by the closure of SDS. The Company does not agree.
Drivers - the Union indicated to the Court that agreement had been reached and later withdrawn by management, which allowed drivers in Dublin to avail of the VS/VER schemes. The Union are now seeking the scheme to apply to all Dublin Drivers on a seniority basis.
Sustaining Progress
The Union claim that the impact of non-payment of the terms of Sustaining Progress on the VS/VER payments has resulted in accumulative loss of 7.16% on their severance and pension payments and seek payment retrospectively to all staff who availed of these schemes.
The Court notes that non-payment of the terms of Sustaining Progress is the subject of investigation under Labour Court Recommendation No: 18088, therefore the Court recommends that this claim should await the outcome of that process, when the resulting recommendation should apply.
Resource Centre/Surplus Staff
The Union are of the view that the SDS agreement states the mechanism for dealing with surplus staff and that this deals adequately with the issue. The Company proposed that in order to stop the losses and secure the savings arising from reintegration, it is necessary to proceed with VS/VER schemes and the Resource Centres. It proposes to place staff who do not exit under the VS/VER schemes and who fail to be reassigned, into a Resource Centre.
The Court recommends that pending the outcome of the Technical Group’s Report on this issue, as recommended under Labour Court Recommendation No: 18088, that the arrangement recommended in Labour Court Recommendation No 17967 for “Unassigned Staff” should apply to surplus staff who do not exit under the VS/VER schemes and who fail to be reassigned.
Owner-Drivers
The Union sought application of the ‘Safety Net’ for Owner-Drivers, which had applied when the concept of Owner Drivers was first introduced into the Company. The Company are confident that there will be adequate quantity of quality work available for Owner-Drivers in the first four months of 2005 to provide them with at least, their current average earnings and were prepared to put in place a ‘loan’ system as a safety net for the Owner-Drivers.
The Court recommends that a ‘fallback’ arrangement should apply to Owner Drivers. This arrangement should allow for a fallback payment of €1000 per week for a period of 8 weeks. The Court sees this as a safety net for those drivers who do not earn €1000 in that period, i.e. where less than €1000 is earned in any of the 8 weeks, then the Company will pay an amount to bring earnings up to €1000.
Duty Competitions
The Company plan to address staffing needs following the reintegration by means of Duty Competitions for the various staff groupings in SDS to be held centrally.
The Union objected to the Company unilaterally deciding on the number of duties that it proposed for the integrated parcel service, and on the Company intention to assign staff to duties and claims that this is contrary to the terms of an agreement reached with the Company in December 2004. It stated that in order for a duty competition to take place it is necessary that the staff are aware of all the options available to them. The Union required the competitions to be held locally with Union involvement. Staff would not have the trust and confidence in the process being performed by management.
The Company’s position is that the staffing levels will ultimately be determined by customer demand. It is a primary management function to establish and maintain the correct number of employees required to meet demand as it fluctuates in accordance with competitiveness and other market forces.
The Court recommends that the status quo should apply to Duty Competitions, pending the Technical Group’s Report as recommended under Labour Court Recommendation No: 18088.
Dublin Drivers
The Union seek to have the interim duty competition for all drivers in Dublin to go ahead as planned but which was later withdrawn by the Company. The Company withdrew the proposal on the basis that the Union required that those without the requisite driving licence should be included in the competition.
The Court recommends that in the event that the duty competition is resolved within the integration process, then the Company should train those without the required licence to achieve the licence, as was the practice in the past.
Postal Sorters in Dublin
Due to the reduction in the number of postal sorters in Dublin and to the requirement for a significant amount of new part time duties, the Union require the filling of posts by utilising full time surplus staff by: -
(a) part time conversion as provided for the TTP agreement
(b) allow full time surplus staff fill the duties on a personal to holder basis as is provided for in the TTP agreement
(c) conversion of part time duties into full time equivalents
The Company stated to the Court that it did not wish to place surplus full time staff in part-time position while retaining their existing salary, on the basis that such positions could become established.
The Court recommends that surplus full time postal sorters in Dublin should be offered
-the part time conversion scheme as provided for under TTP;
- or
- or
Management Levels in Dublin
The Union stated that the Company is proposing to replace new management grades with grades of a lower value and which currently form part of the proposals for the Collection and Delivery area. The Union want the retention in the new depots of the old management grades as established in 2003, i.e. Team Leader, Transport Co-ordinator and Clerical Co-ordinator.
The Company has decided that the selection process for the integrated supervisory positions be confined to existing supervisors. It is feasible that an individual may be appointed to a position at a lower level than the individuals substantive one. The Company propose that where this happens the individual concerned will retain his/her substantive basic pay on personal to holder basis for the period in which they remain in this position.The Court notes that this is not a stand alone issue and is the subject of the Technical Group’s Report as recommended under Labour Court Recommendation No: 18088, therefore it is not possible at this time to make a recommendation on this claim.
Suspensions
Following the scheduling of a LRC conciliation conference for Monday 24th January 2005 to address all outstanding issues, the Company wrote to the Union on 18th January 2005, advising of their intention to proceed with implementation of the closure on 24th January 2005. The Company’s response was that these implementation measures could not be construed as staff impact issues arising from the reintegration, that the Union were aware since July 2004 that the transfer of the Customs operation was an integral feature of the reintegration of the parcels operation and was planned for the end of January 2005. The Company commenced suspensions of staff on the morning of the scheduled LRC conciliation talks and continued to suspend staff throughout the hearing.
The Union claim that monies deducted should be restored to those staff suspended without pay on 24th/25th January 2005.
The Court recommends that monies deducted should be restored to those staff suspended for the period.
LOCAL ISSUES RELATING TO THE INTEGRATION OF SDS INTO AN POST
Discussions commenced under the auspices of Mr. Tom Pomphrett, Labour Relations Commission, on the Local Issues identified to the Court. Agreement on all local issues was not finalised by 28th February 2005 and the outstanding local issues were referred back to the Court. The Court was supplied with the position of both sides on these issues.
The Court notes that the areas where agreement was reached under the auspices of the LRC was in relation to the following: -
Dublin Drivers
Galway
Limerick (except POCs)
Athlone Cleaners
Portlaoise Cleaners
Dublin Cleaners and Patrols
Network Duties (except Cork)
Collection and Delivery Duties
Operational Plan (except Cork)
No agreement was reached between the parties on the following local issues, and in order to facilitate the integration of the parcels business into An Post, the Court hereby issues the following binding recommendations: -
Post Office Clerks - DublinFinance
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company’s proposal to reduce the number of Post Office Clerks to six in Finance Department, to include the retention of one Clerical Co-Coordinator position.
International Duties
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company’s proposal to reduce the number of posts in International to two posts. The Court recommends acceptance of the transfer of this Department from Dublin to Portlaoise on the basis that the Dublin Post Office Clerks may volunteer to transfer with the work.
POD Scanning
The Court recommends retention of three of the existing POC posts, and recommends that a review of the work load should be carried out three months after integration to ascertain if the staffing level is appropriate.Human Resources
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company’s proposal that existing staff in the HR section in An Post should absorb the HR work associated with the reintegration of the parcels business.
Clerical Review
The Court understands that the impact associated with the reintegration of the parcels business on existing staff in An Post will be part of the negotiations under the Clerical Pay and Grade Review, currently underway and is at an advanced stage at the LRC which the Court has recommended above, should be completed by not later than the end of April 2005.Dublin Drivers – Accommodation
The Court notes that a number of issues have been agreed between the parties on accommodation issues. However, the Union holds the view that the existing depot at Sandyford is insufficient to handle existing traffic and will not be appropriate to cater for future growth. The Court is of the view that an appropriate independent professional examination should be conducted into the Sandyford depot. The Court recommends that the parties should agree on this appointment and the exercise should be completed by the end of May 2005.
Postal Sorters in Dublin
Proposals were put forward by the Company on the required level of staffing in Kilbarrack and Sandyford, which were later modified when account was taken of the loss of customers. The Company’s volume figures on the projected level of business have been rejected by the Union.
The Court understands that as part of the Survival Plan 2003, there were ‘agreed standards’ on various work duties associated with parcel handling (copy of which was supplied to the Court). The Court recommends that the original figures given by the Company should be implemented with a review of the staffing levels taking place three-months after integration, based on the ‘agreed standards’.
Housekeeping
On the basis that the Court has recommended above, that the original figures for Postal Sorters in Dublin should be implemented (on a three month trial basis), the Court recommends that these duties should be subsumed into these positions, and these amalgamated duties should be examined as part of the review.
Management Levels in Dublin
The Court recommends the management staffing levels proposed by the Company in Dublin - one DSM and two IOP’s. The Court recommends that the filling of these posts should be confined to existing grades within SDS.
Athlone Depot
Interim Arrangements
The Company advised the Union that integration in Athlone cannot take place until October 2005, at the earliest when the extension of the Mail Centre is completed. In the interim, the Court recommends that the current operation should remain with the existing staffing levels.
Volume /Staffing Level
The Court recommends that the original staffing level figures given by the Company should be implemented for a period of three months after the completion of the Mail Centre extension. Following which there should be a review based on the ‘agreed standards’.
Management of Depot
The Court recommends that until the extension of the Mail Centre is complete, that the Superintendent 2 position should be retained in Coosan and one IOP should be transferred from the Mail Centre to Coosan and that the Managers in the Mail Centre should absorb the work of the IOP.Clerical
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company’s proposals that existing staff in the Athlone Mail Centre should absorb the clerical work of the parcels business; this employee(s) should be allowed to avail of VS/VER and the resulting savings should be credited in the Clerical Pay and Grade Review.
Limerick Depot
Volume/Staffing Levels
The Court notes that volumes levels have been agreed in the Limerick Depot. The normal grade for parcel sorters in this location is Postperson grade, however on this occasion due to the reintegration, the Company have agreed to the appointment of two parcel sorters on a personal to holder basis at Postal Sorter grade. However, the Court recommends that for the future this grade should be at Postperson grade.
Clerical
The Court recommends that there should be four POC positions in Limerick and that the situation should be reviewed as part of the Clerical Pay and Grade Review, where final staffing levels should be agreed.
Cork Depot
Volume/Staffing Levels
The Court recommends that the original staffing level figures given by the Company should be implemented on a three-month trial basis. Following which there should be a review based on the ‘agreed standards’.
Management of Depot
The Court recommends that the management staffing level in the Cork Depot should be the Depot Manager, plus one manager at Superintendent 2 level to take responsibility for parcels business, to be in attendance especially at the busiest times for parcel business reporting to the Depot Manager.
Clerical
The Court recommends the retention of one POC in the Cork Depot.
Network Duties
The Court notes that network duties have been agreed between the parties following the discussions under the auspices of the LRC.Portlaoise Depot
Volume /Staffing Level
The Court recommends that the original staffing level figures given by the Company should be implemented on a three-month trial basis. Following which there should be a review based on the ‘agreed standards’.
Management of Depot
The Court recommends that the management staffing level in Portlaoise should be one IOP, plus one manager at Superintendent 1 level to take responsibility for parcels business, reporting to the Depot Manager. The Court also recommends that any additional management staffing requirements should be provided from existing management resources in the Mail Centre.
Clerical
The Court recommends that there should be four POC positions in Portlaoise, (this takes into account the two posts recommended above whereby the International Department will transfer from Dublin to Portlaoise) and that the situation should be reviewed as part of the POC Clerical Pay and Grade review, where final staffing levels should be agreed.
Conclusion
The Court so recommends under Section 20 (2)of the Industrial Relations Act 1969, which both parties have agreed to be bound by.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th March, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.