FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - PSEU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Re-hearing arising from LCR 18380 & 18817.
BACKGROUND:
2. In Labour Court Recommendation 18380 concerning An Post and the PSEU the Court recommended payment of increases commencing on 7 October 2004. The Court recommendation was accepted by both parties. The increases awarded were to be paid in three phases and An Post has implemented all phases of this productivity agreement.
A similar claim, but with unique circumstances, between the CWU and An Post resulted in the issuing of Labour Court Recommendation 18817. In this instance the Court recommended that, on completion of certain issues, the amount awarded should be paid in one payment retrospective to an agreed date. This award has also been paid by An Post.
The PSEU are claiming that the discrepancy between the two awards has in effect penalised their members for ongoing cooperation by comparison with other work colleagues.The Union is asking the Court to apply the same terms to their members in An Post as were applied to members of the CWU.
The issue could not be resolved at local level. The Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 10th May, 2007, in accordance with Section20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th August, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union maintain that the essential ingredients of the agreements are the same and involve cost-saving and productivity measures in return for pay increases. For no discernible reason the Court applied different pay arrangements.
2. The Union are asking the Court to recommend that their members be paid the full value of their total increases with effect from 1st December,2003.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company and the Union both accepted Labour Court Recommendation 18380. The resulting agreement has been implemented with all payments due, including retrospection, paid in full.
2. Under Labour Court Recommendation 18817 the Labour Court clearly set out that it dealt with "unique circumstances" and as such it is clear that these circumstances are "unique" and therefore do not apply in relation to the PSEU .
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken full account of the submissions made by the parties to this dispute.
The circumstances in which this matter came before the Court are unusual. The Court issued LCR18380 in November 2005 in which it recommended on the effective dates for payment of the increases due on foot of a productivity agreement between the Company and PSEU. The retrospection recommended was significantly less than that claimed by the Union. All parties accepted that recommendation. Subsequently a differently constituted division of the Court recommended, in LCR18817, different retrospective payments in respect of another group represented by a different Union. In consequence of this second recommendation the Union are now seeking a rehearing of their original claim.
In LCR18817 the Court identified unique circumstances pertaining to the group associated with that claim. The recommendation was intended to reflect those unique circumstances. In the case of LCR18380 the Court issued its recommendation having fully evaluated the submissions of the parties. That recommendation was accepted by all parties and in these circumstances the Court has discharged its function in the dispute. It cannot reopen the case on the application of one party.
Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st October, 2007______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.