FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DHL EXPRESS (IRELAND) LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Retrospection on Productivity Related Pay (PRP) Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a domestic and international courier/parcel business as well as having supply chain and logistics services both on a local and international basis. The organisation is wholly owned by DPWN (Deutsche Post World Net).
In July 2003 DPWN purchased three organisation in Ireland, among these was Securicor Omega Express (parcels division of Securicor i.e. domestic couriers). The employees transferred into the new organisation with all terms and conditions of employment intact (including a Productivity Related Pay system, PRP).
In March 2006 all terms and conditions of employment, including the PRP policy for this group of employees changed as a result of the acceptance of proposals negotiated by SIPTU with the Company.
The issue before the Court relates to the old PRP system which was replaced with a new agreed DHL system and policy in March 2006. The PRP system is a target based delivery system and at the time of introduction no provision for Public Holidays was included.
An agreement was reached between the Union and the Company and implemented from Christmas 2005. The issue of retrospection of PRP payments for 17 couriers who had worked a four-day week when a public holiday fell on their rostered weeks from the year 2000 however, remained to be resolved.
The issue could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th July, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th March, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Company should adjust the delivery targets on any week that includes a Public Holiday within the working week. The effect of this would be to amend the targets in line with the number of working days.
2. There are only nine Public Holidays in the year, not all of which will fall during a working week. The cost associated with the claim therefore is not large.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. At the introduction of the PRP system in Limerick in 2000 no provision for a reduction in weekly targets was made on weeks where a Public Holiday fell. This had been the precedent and practice by both Management and staff until the autumn of 2005.
2. During the five year period from 2000 to 2005 records show that employees have been able to meet the weekly targets on weeks where a Public Holiday fell. No issues were raised by staff during this period.
3. The claim is cost increasing and outside the terms of the alignment agreement reached in 2005 between the Union and the Company. The agreement was in full and final settlement of all claims up to that point and into the future with regard to PRP.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the Unions claim for retrospection back to the year 2000 in respect of an agreement reached on the Company’s Performance Related Pay (PRP) and its application to weeks on which a Public Holiday falls.
The Company disagrees with the Union’s contention that this claim originated in 2000 and maintained that it was first formally lodged with the Company in the summer 2005. However, in recognition of an agreement on a new PRP scheme to be introduced in January 2006 to replace the old scheme, it offered as a “gesture of goodwill”, to amend the targets for four Public Holidays in 2005 (the August and October Public Holidays, Christmas Day and St. Stephen’s Day 2005).
The Union rejected the offer and sought retrospection of PRP payments for 17 couriers working a four-day week during those public holidays, which fell on their rostered weeks from the year 2000.
The Court notes the level of disagreement between the parties with regard to the date of the claim; however, it accepts there was an apparent lack of clarity on the specifics of the claim until the Union’s letter of 26th July 2005. An earlier issue regarding payments due in respects of statutory public holiday entitlements was understood by the Company to have been the problem. This issue was subsequently clarified and resolved. When the issue of “Productivity Performance Pay target setting on the week where a Public Holidays falls” surfaced in July 2005, the Company offered the “gesture of goodwill” in settlement of the issue and in recognition of the agreement on the new PRP scheme.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the “gesture of goodwill” offered by the Company should be improved by the payment of an additional €250 to each of the claimants concerned in full and final settlement of this claim.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th April, 2007______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.