FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL CAR TESTING SERVICES LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES LTD) - AND - AGEMO TRADE GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Re-hearing arising from LCR17746.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court arises from a Labour Court Recommendation LCR17746 issued on the 3rd February, 2004 which was made in response to difficulties in reaching an agreement on the terms of a productivity and gainsharing scheme within the Company. The Recommendation states: “The Court, accordingly, recommends that an examination by an agreed independent assessor should be conducted to determine a definition of 'standard performance' and a measurement of throughput. The parties should set out mutually agreed terms of reference and an agenda for the assessor. The Court recommends that the outcome of the assessor's determination should be accepted by both sides and should be the subject of discussion between the parties with a view to reaching agreement on the required levels of improved output and performance for the purpose of the productivity/gainsharing scheme. These discussions to be completed before the end of March, 2004. In the event of any disagreement, the parties may refer such issues as are in dispute back to the Court”.Proposals which emanated from the Independent Engineer’s Report of Mr. Ken Stafford were rejected by the Union.
The Union's claim is for parity with the Vehicle Testers rate as advertised by the Department of Transport i.e. a salary scale of €34,711 to €47,343. This is the rate that has been struck following full and proper evaluations of the role and responsibility of a Vehicle Inspector.
The Company referred the dispute back to the Labour Court on the 3rd February, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Labour Court Recommendation LCR16742 recommended that the Union's claim for an increase in pay should be addressed through the introduction of a Gainshare/Productivity scheme. This approach has failed despite the Union's best efforts.
2. The Union remains adamant that the rate of pay for NCTS Testing Staff does not reflect the responsibility and experience required to perform the test.
3. The rate of pay for the job was set by the Company in 1999, the Union was not involved in the process, the rate set was the lowest rate of pay that mechanics would accept at the time.
4. The Company has paid the National Wage Agreements but no review of the rates of pay has been conducted.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company believes that the principles as established in the proposals of Mr. Stafford's Report reflect accurately the performance requirements that the Company is entitled to expect from its employees.
2. The Company maintains its right to decide on the level of throughput of vehicles and through its investment in training, it is entitled to expect that employees would work to those standards.
3. Mr. Stafford's Report has assisted the parties in clearly identifying what should not reasonably be expected. As indicated the Company would be of the view that in a greenfield situation they would now be looking at performance levels in excess of85% as standard performance.
4. By accepting 85% as being the standard performance all parties now have a yardstick against which their performance can be measured. The Company uses this measurement as part of its training standards for all new employees and will continue to do so.
5. The Company believes that staff can increase their earnings from this scheme. It is strongly committed to the fact that the clear and obvious capacity to achieve the additional productivity to fund the scheme can be leveraged and it will support staff in every reasonable manner to maximize the mutual benefits from the scheme.
6. The Company has already committed significant resources both internally and externally through Mr. Stafford's assistance and time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having heard the submissions of the parties and given the contents of Labour Court Recommendation No's. LCR16742 and LCR17746, which dealt with the same issues, the Court can only express its surprise that, despite its previous rejection by the Court, a claim for a straight pay increase is once again the Union's preferred option.
This claim cannot be conceded given the precedent set and the provisions of "Sustaining Progress".
The Court recommends that the parties resume discussions on the basis of resolving the issues between them through productivity and/or gainsharing, taking into account the considerable amount of progress already made in this area with the assistance of the independent facilitator.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
20th April, 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.