FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Re-hearing arising from LCR17886 and LCR17967.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is seeking clarification of one section of LCR17967 which issued in October, 2004. LCR 17967 was itself a hearing arising from LCR 17886 which dealt with restructuring in An Post. The present dispute concerns 9/10 workers who are unassigned / surplus managers as a result of restructuring in 2004. They are located in a Resource Centre in College House where they are available for assignment to other work. The Union's case is that part of an agreement between the parties (which incorporated LCR 17967) was that the workers would not suffer a loss of pay, in this case an allowance in the nature of pay. The workers were offered voluntary severance/voluntary early retirement (VS/VER) but refused it. The section of LCR 17967 that the Union is seeking clarification on is :-
In the event of this (i.e VS/VER) not being accepted those concerned should retain their current pay and conditions of employment (including any modifications from this Recommendation).
The Company's case is that as the workers are no longer doing the shift / on call duties which merited the allowance there is no reason to pay the allowance.
The Union sought clarification from the Court in August, 2006. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of January, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 All 10 workers were in continuous receipt of an allowance in the nature of pay. Nine of them were designated as unassigned by the Company as a result of restructuring.
2. The issue of the loss of the allowance was never mentioned during talks between the parties, something acknowledged by the Company. The Union would not have reached agreement with the Company if it had been aware of the impending loss.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Shift and on-call allowance are part of the conditions of employment in the Company. However, they are not life-long or permanent entitlements for employees.
2. Allowances are not paid on an ongoing basis to employees who are not required to work such patterns e.g. employees in the mail processing centres who move elsewhere in the Company and are no longer required to work shift / on call lose the allowances payable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the Union's claim is not without merit. In particular the Court accepts that the circumstances of the Claimants are unusual and in some respects unique in that:-
- The allowance at issue is in the nature of pay and that in the normal course of events the Claimants would have had a legitimate expectation of retaining the allowance and having it reflected in their pension.
- The Claimants are compulsorily assigned to the resource centre and have not been assigned elsewhere within the Company.
- The discontinuance of the allowances at issue was never discussed or anticipated in the course of the negotiations leading to the Productivity and Change Agreement.
The Court recommends that, having regard to these and other relevant considerations, including the impact of Productivity and Change Agreement, the parties should resume negotiations with a view to finding a solution to the current dispute. These negotiations should continue for a period not exceeding four weeks. If agreement is not reached the matter should be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th January, 2007______________________
CON/MC.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.