FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NATIONAL CAR TESTING SERVICE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES LIMITED) - AND - A.G.E.M.O. TRADE GROUP (SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rehearing of LCR 16742
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court arises directly from a Labour Court Recommendation LCR18541 issued on the 20th April, 2006 and also from a previous Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17746 issued on the 3rd February, 2004 which was made in response to difficulties in reaching an agreement on the terms of a productivity scheme within the Company. Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17746 stated: “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 an Independent Engineer’s Report were rejected by the Union.
The matter was referred back to the Court on the 3rd February, 2006 and Labour Court Recommendation LCR18541 issued on the 20th April, 2006 stated "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".
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, according to the Union is the rate that has been struck following full and proper evaluations of the role and responsibility of a Vehicle Inspector.
As the matter could not be resolved the Union referred the dispute back to the Labour Court on the 2nd October, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th December, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union has in the past six years been endeavouring to have the wages of workers in the NCTS increased and brought into line with other good employments. Countless meetings at local level, Conciliation Conferences and Labour Court hearings have endeavoured to reach a solution to both the wages problem and that of productivity.
2. The consensus of opinion throughout the Company is that management on the issue of a productivity deal is expecting too much, offering too little and having no regard for the productivity the Company has received to date.
3. The last offer to date was to be spread over a period of time and would see the integration of the bonus on offer being subsumed into basic pay. However, the price to be paid for this was the reduction of a shift with a possible loss of 15-20 jobs and all that workers would receive would be a share of the wages saved by such a loss of jobs.
4. In the period since this Company has entered the Irish market it has extensively recruited mechanics, team leaders, administration staff and marshals but the rates of pay within the Company have dramatically fallen behind that of their counterparts in the engineering industry (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company has been involved in constant investment in its operations to ensure that staff have the right equipment and systems to do the best possible work in an effective way. The Company contends that the standard performance level of 85% is currently achievable. Were this to be done the Company would not have to recruit additional personnel to do the work and it is this that generates savings which in turn can be paid to the staff.
2. The Company and the staff negotiating committee have spent considerable time and effort to design a scheme that is clearly transparent and has the ability to generate additional income for the participants. The proposals agreed would mean that a Vehicle Inspector who is currently on a salary of €30,412.00 would receive €1,200 in lump sum payments over a 12 month period and a subsequent increase in basic pay of €1,800 making salary in 2007 €32,212. When including their next 5% increase under the pay agreement covering 2007/2008 this would mean their basic pay would have risen by 16.9%. Over the period of the national pay agreement, this compares favourably with the general increase of 10.4% for most employees covered by national agreements.
3. The Company believes that this is a substantial commitment by the Company in return for staff to perform at what has been agreed as the standard performance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered the submissions made to it by both parties.
Noting that it is agreed by both parties that 85% is standard performance, and that the benefits of performance above this level should be shared by all the staff involved, at all grades, the Court, in this context, regards the Company's proposal of 7th June 2006 as being realistic going forward and recommends that it be accepted by the Union.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th January, 2007______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.