FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BOC GAS SERVICES - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Pay 2. St. James's Hospital - GFM Engineer position.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issues in dispute concern 14 Customer Engineering Services Engineers (CESE's) who are engaged in the installation and maintenance of BOC owned equipment at customer sites and in the country's hospitals. The claimants work a 39 hour week, have a basic eleven point incremental salary scale plus on-call allowance and a company car.
Claim 1. Pay increase.The Union's claim is for a pay increase over and above the terms of prevailing social partnership agreements in accordance with the Company/ Union agreement of April, 1997. The agreement was due to be reviewed in 2002. The Union's expectation was that the CESE's would continue to benefit from increases of a similar level above National Wage Agreements. During the course of local discussions the Company put forward a number of proposals including the introduction of an Annualised Hours agreement. The Union is agreeable in principle to an Annualised Hours agreement but sought amendments to the Company's proposal.
Claim 2. Appointment of GFM Engineer.The Company proposed a Gases Facilities Management (GFM) Engineer post at St James's Hospital which would be based full time at that site working Monday to Friday. The position would attract the basic salary but would not receive the on-call allowance or a company car. The Union is opposed to the proposal.
Local discussions were not successful and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th August, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 16th November, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Claim A- Increase in payThe CESE's have an agreement with the employer that entitled them to a pay review inclusive of National Wage Agreements. The employer has benefited from significant ongoing change during the period since the review clause became effective. The offer of Annualised Hours agreement was acceptable in principle to the CESE 's. However, the Company has refused to modify its Annualised Hours proposal despite efforts by the Union to reach an agreed formula that would deliver a beneficial package for both parties.
2. The Union proposed a banked hours system that would see the unused agreed hours discounted periodically. The Union also insisted that the 39 hour week is protected. The Union has also proposed a review of the operation of the scheme after an agreed time to ensure that neither party has achieved an unforeseen advantage.
3Claim B- Appointment of GFM Engineer.The Union has rejected the Company's proposal on this issue on the basis that all service engineers must have the same pay and conditions of employment. The CESE's are currently servicing the plant associated with this proposal from within the main group and feel this should continue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1Claim A- Increase in pay. The current claim is cost-increasing in nature and prohibited under the terms of social partnership. Concession of the Union's claim for a pay increase in basic pay over and above the terms of National Wage Agreements would increase Company costs and would have adverse consequences for competitiveness. The Company does not wish to concede any basic wage increase in excess of the Towards 2016 provisions.
2. To date the Union has rejected all Company suggestions as a basis for achieving a pay increase. Management has asked the Union for agreement on a number of items to fund these increases and other labour costs. The Union rejected the request. The Company remains amenable to negotiating an acceptable agreement with the Union subject to it being achieved on a cost neutral basis and in accordance with the productivity /flexibility changes outlined.
3.Claim B-Appointment of GFM Engineer.The Company has recently been successful in tendering for a new position of GFM Engineer based full time at St James's Hospital working Monday to Friday. The Company has won this price sensitive contract based on a GFM Engineer on basic salary with no on-call allowance and no company car. The appointee to this post would not participate in the 14 man CESE 'on call ' roster. Call outs and holiday sickness cover at St James's Hospital will continue to be covered by the existing on-call roster. Also the incumbent GFM Engineer role will be allowed to progress to a CESE role if he/she desires when a vacancy arises.
4. It is very important that the Company operate the GFM Engineer appointment successfully so as to consolidate its hospital business. The Company recently lost a third party maintenance contract due to uncompetitive costs.
5. Given the highly competitive nature of the business, it is imperative that the GFM Engineer position located at St James's Hospital be agreed as a matter of urgency. An on-call allowance and company car should not apply to this position. It is a stand alone position that should not be linked to the current terms and conditions of employment of a CESE. If such benefits were to apply to this position then the Company would be unable to commercially sustain this contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
Claim A - Increase in Pay:
The Court notes the terms of the Agreement concluded between the parties in 1997. However, the Court has consistently upheld the terms of successive pay agreements associated with National Partnership Agreements and in particular the stabilisation provisions of those Agreements. Accordingly the Court is fully satisfied that any adjustments in pay above the terms of Towards 2016 can not be cost increasing.
In that regard it is noted that the parties have had discussions on the introduction of an annualised hours arrangement. It appears that while both sides were agreeable in principle to such an approval they could not agree on the core principles on which it would operate.
The Court believes that the current impasse should be resolved by the introduction of a mutually acceptable annualised hours structure. It is for the parties to design the type of system which meets the circumstances of this employment. However any such system should provide a defined number of contract or rostered hours per week and a defined number of reserved or non-rostered hours which could be used in place of overtime. Such reserved hours which are not used should be deleted after an agreed period not exceeding 12 months.
These discussions should commence as soon as practicable after acceptance of this recommendation and conclude within three months. If agreement is not reached the matter should be referred back to the Court.
Claim B- Appointment of GFM Engineer:
Having regard to the particular circumstances relating to this proposed appointment the Court recommends that the Company's proposals be accepted. The Company should also provide the Union with appropriate assurances that terms and conditions of employment proposed are exclusively for this post and will not be applied in any other situation without agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th November, 2006
tod______________________
Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.