FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - COMMUNICATION WORKERS UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Matters referred to the Court by the National Implementation Body
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 18th, 19th and 20th November 2005 in relation to outstanding issues in dispute between An Post and the Communication Workers Union. The following is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
In July 2005 the Court issued Recommendations 18260 and 18261 which dealt with a claim for the payment of increases due under Sustaining Progress and with the Company’s change programme in relation to An Post’s collection and delivery service, which had been the subject of an examination by an Expert Technical Group appointed
by the Court.
These Recommendations were rejected by the Union and, following a ballot of the Union’s membership, notice of industrial action was served on the Company.
The parties were invited to talks by the National Implementation Body established under Sustaining Progress. Following intensive discussions with the parties the NIB issued the following statement on 17th November 2005:
- “The National Implementation Body (NIB) has engaged intensively with both sides to the dispute in An Post since 3rd November, 2005.
During the course of this engagement the Body became aware of significant differences of understanding between the parties regarding the cost and implications of a number of amendments proposed by the CWU on 3rd August, 2005, to changes in the collection and delivery sector recommended by the Labour Court in Recommendations 18260/1.- The NIB took the view that clarification of the cost and implications of these amendments was essential if a basis for a resolution of the dispute is to be found.
Arising from this it commissioned Grant Thornton to carry out an analysis of these matters. Grant Thornton reported on 17th November, 2005, and their findings were discussed with the parties.
In the light of -
- The NIB took the view that clarification of the cost and implications of these amendments was essential if a basis for a resolution of the dispute is to be found.
�the fact that every part of the industrial relations machinery of the State has been extensively used to date;
�the work commissioned by the NIB from accountants Grant Thornton and the responses made to it by the parties;
�the problems on the union side, of achieving acceptance of a departure from terms and conditions of employment enjoyed by other employees of the company as part of the changes required of collection and delivery staff, together with current proposals for payment of Sustaining Progress and the continuing disagreement relating to the assumptions underpinning An Post’s financial projections;
�the problem on the company side, in light of its financial and commercial circumstances and Labour Court Recommendations 18260/1, of departing from the changes necessary to yield the savings required to fund the recommended pay increases;
�the expressed desire of both parties to engage proactively with a view to finding an agreed solution;
�the NIB requests the Court to assist the parties in reaching an agreed solution over the period immediately ahead, ending on Tuesday, 22nd November, 2005. The NIB has agreed to brief the Court on the detail of its discussions with the parties over recent weeks.
- During this process the NIB recommends that the parties refrain from comment and continue to treat the Grant Thornton report as confidential.
This request is being made to the Court in the expectation that any findings will be put by the CWU to its membership”
- During this process the NIB recommends that the parties refrain from comment and continue to treat the Grant Thornton report as confidential.
It is clear to the Court that the Union are committed to delivering significant change in the collection and delivery service of An Post. However many of the items which they raised with the Court are seen as a major, and in some cases an insurmountable, obstacle to final agreement on the Expert Technical Group report. For its part the Management are firm in their conviction that the proposed changes are crucial to the survival of the Company and must be implemented. They pointed out that the changes were evaluated and recommended by the Expert Technical Group appointed by the Court and endorsed by the Court itself. In these circumstances the Management could see no scope for changes in the report which would limit the attainment of the level of savings and efficiencies needed by the Company.
In the course of its deliberations the NIB commissioned a firm of financial consultants to examine and report on the cost implications of the changes proposed by the Union. The report of the consultants was given to the Court and the Court met with the consultants to discuss its contents.
In seeking to assist the parties in dealing with the present impasse the Court has sought to find a basis upon which the objectives of the change programme as recommend by the Expert Technical Group would be preserved but in a way which could be supported by the Union.
Having considered all of the submissions made to it, the Court believes that the elaborations and clarifications on Recommendation 18260 which follow specifically address the points with which the Union have raised as significant issues, without impairing the fundamentals of the Company’s change programme.
In accordance with the agreement reached at the NIB, this Recommendation is being made on the understanding that it be put by CWU to a ballot of its members.
Elaborations
1 Partnership
It is clear to the Court that there is an urgent need for An Post Management and CWU to critically review their ongoing relationship. In that regard the Court notes that a process was previously put in place to review partnership arrangements facilitated by the Chairperson of the Centre for Partnership and Performance. This process must be immediately reactivated and the parties should fully cooperate in establishing real partnership models to deal with all issues affecting the Company and its staff.
2. 100% BSI
The Union contend that this standard will not be achievable in the Christmas period and in heavy, abnormal or election postings.
Given the proximity of the Christmas posting period the Court believes that it would be impracticable to apply the new standard this year. In these circumstances the Court recommends that in respect of Christmas 2005 the same arrangements should apply as applied in 2004. Immediately in the new year the parties should commence discussions on the difficulties that are apprehended by the Union in the application of 100% BSI in respect of Christmas 2006 and subsequent years. This review should involve appropriate experts from each side.
If agreement is not reached by end April 2006 the matter should be referred back to the Court for final adjudication.
3. Leave in Lieu.
The Court recommends that the current leave in lieu arrangements be modified as follows:
�Only the premium element of overtime should be capable of being used to accrue leave in lieu with the actual time worked being paid for at standard time.
�No more than 3 days leave in lieu per year may be accumulated per employee.
4. Leave Reserve Ratio
The leave reserve ratio of one reserve for every nine posts, as recommended by the Expert Technical Group, should apply.
5.Transfers.
Paragraph 9.3.3 of the Expert Technical Group report should be amended so as to restrict transfers to adjacent locations only.
The amended paragraph should read:
- “For the purposes of initial staffing, Dublin and Cork should be regarded as one office and consequently staff who fail to achieve a post in their existing DSU could be required to transfer temporarily to other Dublin / Cork DSU’s, in an adjacentlocation,while the redesign of Dublin / Cork is completed, in order to facilitate the process outlined at 9.3.2”
6. Filling of Postal Operative Vacancies
The main issue between the parties in relation to the filling of postal operative vacancies concerns the proposal to discontinue the practice known as duty competitions. This is a long-standing and established practice in An Post. The Company sees the practice as inflexible and outdated and are seeking its abolition. For their part the Union do not accept that a case exists for the abolition of what they see as this time-honoured system. While they were prepared to engage with the Company to address whatever difficulties are perceived with the current arrangements they are not prepared to agree to the specific changes contained in the Expert Technical Group report.
The Court accepts that there is a case for reform of the present arrangements and that there are problems associated with it operation. There are, however, valid issues of concern to both sides in relation to this matter. It seems to the Court that the differences between the parties, while significant, should be capable of being reconciled and that an accommodation between the parties, which would address the concerns and objectives on each side, should be possible.
However the Court has been left with the firm conviction that there is no viable prospect of obtaining final agreement on this point within the time available. This arises, in the main, from the absence of any meaningful trust and confidence between the parties which has negated any possibility of developing joint problem solving mechanisms within which such issues would normally be resolved. In the Court’s considered judgement it would be counterproductive for the company to insist on implementing the proposed abolition of duty competitions at this time.
The Court recommends that on ratification of the change agreement a joint working party should be established to consider the problems identified by management with the current arrangements and the concerns which the Union has with the proposed reforms. This working party should be assisted by an agreed facilitator, or in the absence of agreement, a facilitator nominated by the Court. This working party should address, in particular,
�The need to ensure the flexible utilisation of staff to meet collection and delivery service needs,
�The need to address concerns around the concept of ownership of duties,
�The need to allow a reasonable level of choice of delivery areas based on seniority together with suitability and the exigencies of the business.
�The need for a fair efficient and rational system of facilitating transfers.
This working party should complete its work within a period of six months and the services of the Court will be available to it if required.
As an immediate measure it will be necessary for the parties to agree a suitable form of wording to incorporate the effect of the above recommendation in paragraph 10.4.1 of the Expert Technical Group report. This should be done within one week of ratification of the agreement. Should the parties disagree they should submit their proposed drafts to the Court which will decide the matter.
7. Recruitment of Temporary Staff.
The proposals on recruitment of temporary and casual staff, at paragraphs 10.1.3 and 10.1.4 of the Expert Technical Group report should be modified so as to provide that temporary staff can be employed for vacancies of three months and upwards. Casual staff may be employed for vacancies in excess of five days.
8. Post Persons Pay.
The Court recommends that the proposals on Post Persons pay be amended so as to provide for an allowance of 12.5%, pensionable at 83.6%.
9. Delivery Service Managers.
It is noted that the Company are in a position to conduct a review of the salary applicable to Delivery Service Managers within 6 weeks of the conclusion of an agreement. The company further anticipate that this review will result in a significant increase for the grade.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the grade should cease to be eligible for overtime on the implementation of the outcome of the review.
10. Working Leaders.
The Court recommends that there be a single grade of working leader to which a 20% allowance should apply.
11. Holiday Pay
The Court recommends that the current arrangements with regard to the calculation of average earnings for holiday pay should be retained in respect of existing staff but should not apply to new staff.
12. Mark Time.
The current arrangement should continue for a further three years after which its continued operation should be reviewed. Should the parties disagree on future arrangements at that time the matter should be referred back to the Court for final adjudication.
13. Income Protection Scheme.
There was considerable disagreement between the parties as to the cost involved in maintaining this scheme. This in turn relates to the validity of assumptions concerning the level of overtime likely to be worked in future years. While it was not possible to reconcile these differences, the Court recognises that as the new reward structure associated with the change agreement comes into place this should ameliorate the losses in earnings resulting from reduction in overtime. Accordingly, this scheme should be phased out concurrent with the introduction of the proposed change allowances. The Court further believes that the baseline for calculating income protection should be set at the maximum number of hours permissible under the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 (48 per week).
As so adjusted the scheme should apply on the basis of 70% of income in year 1 and 55% of income in year 2. Thereafter it should be discontinued.
14. Walkinstown Garage
Issues relating to staff displaced by the closure of the Walkinstown Garage should be the subject of discussions between the parties and if agreement is not reached should be referred to the Court for final adjudication.
15. Recommendations of Expert Technical Group
The report of the Expert Technical Group, dealt with in Recommendation 18260, as elaborated / clarified by this Recommendation should now be accepted.
16. Sustaining Progress
As will be noted from the 4th bullet point in the NIB statement set out above the Court was also requested to consider the dispute between the Union and the Company in relation to the payment of increases due under Sustaining Progress.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the outstanding increases under Sustaining Progress be now paid 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.
- 3% with effect from 1st November 2003.
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.
- 1st Part Sustaining Progress.
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 eturned to reasonable and sustainable profit and as 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
22nd November 2005______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.