FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS (EDS) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IBOA MEMBERS IN EDS BALLYCOOLIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BANK OFFICIALS ASSOCIATION (IBOA)) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1) Failure of Company to recognise the IBOA for collective bargaining purposes. (2). Failure of Company in providing IBOA members with a transparent pay-for- performance system.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case is as follows in relation to the two issues: (1) following the transfer of some Union members from Ulster Bank to the Company the parties signed an agreement in which the Company recognised the Union for collective bargaining purposes on behalf of these workers. Following this a number of Company staff in Ballycoolin (working on the Xerox account) who are employed on standard terms and conditions joined the Union which sought to represent them for collective bargaining purposes. The Company's response was that it would not recognise the Union in this case. (2) on the second issue the Union's case is that there is a lack of transparency in the pay-for-performance system which results in members not getting salary increases despite having achieved their agreed objectives and goals.
The Company's case is that it prefers to deal with the workers concerned on an individual basis as it has always done. On the second issue the Company maintains that its salary ranges reflect what the market is paying.
The Union referred the two issues to the Labour Court on the 21st June, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th July, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has in membership the majority of staff on the Xerox contract in Ballycoolin. They joined the Union because management refused to address their issues and concerns despite staff constantly raising them through the internal process. Many of them joined after learning that the Company was prepared to recognise the Union for collective purposes in dealing with staff transferred from Ulster Bank.
2. The basic principle of the Company's Compensation Policy and Performance Review is that rewards are based on an individual's contribution; the better the performance the greater the financial reward. However, in a number of cases it has been anything from 18 months plus since staff have had an increase in their salary despite receiving end-of-year ratings stating that they are "valued contributors". The current Performance Pay System is non-transparent and lacks credibility.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union has not made clear how many, if any, members it is representing. None of the employees on the Xerox account has ever raised a grievance regarding union recognition. The IBOA is a financial services union and, as such, the Company recognises it for collective bargaining purposes in regard to staff transferred from Ulster Bank. The Company sees no validity in recognising it on behalf of employees who work in a non-finance related account e.g. Xerox.
2. Pay rates in the Company are benchmarked to those in the industry. The IT outsourcing industry is highly competitive and cost-conscious. The Company participates in confidential external market surveys with its competitors to ensure that it is paying in the same range as these competitors. It operates pay-for-performance but always within budget constraints.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company submitted that the Union had failed to establish that it is representative of employees on whose behalf the claims before the Court were made and that a trade dispute, capable of being investigated by the Court, exists.
The Court is conscious that the outcome of the process in which it is engaged in this case cannot affect legally enforceable rights or impose legal obligations on any party. In these circumstances evidential standards which may be appropriate in mandatory procedures resulting in a legally enforceable outcome need not be replicated by the Court in the exercise of its voluntary industrial relations functions.
The Court asked the representatives of the IBOA for a solemn assurance that: -
(a) It represents employees of the Company on whose behalf the claims before the Court were made
(b) That those employees wish to be represented by the IBOA for collective bargaining purposes, and
(c) The facility to represent those employees has been refused by the Company.The representative of the Union gave the assurances in the terms requested. It has always been the practice of this Court, in the exercise of its industrial relations function, to accept the word of reputable representative of Trade Union or Employer Organisations on matters arising in the course of an investigation. Accordingly, the Court accepts the solemn assurances given by IBOA and that a valid trade dispute exists between it, on behalf of its members, and the Company.
Claim for recognition.
The Union claims that it should be recognised for collective bargaining purposes. The Company told the Court that it wishes to deal directly with its staff without the involvement of a Trade Union.
It is noted that the IBOA is recognised by the Company in respect of employees transferred from another undertaking. It is also accepted that the Company recognises trade unions in respect of transferred staff in the UK. There is no suggestion that the Company has any difficulty in dealing with trade unions in those situations.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, and having taken full account of all of the arguments advanced by the parties, the Court recommends that the Company should recognise the Union for collective bargaining purposes. The parties should meet at an early date to negotiate a framework agreement setting down the basis of their future working relationship.
Pay Determination
It is noted that the Union does not object to the continuance of a pay determination system based on performance. They feel, however, that the current arrangements in that regard lack transparency.
The Court recommends that all aspects of the current pay determination system should be the subject of negotiations between the Union and the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th August, 2008______________________
CONChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.