FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 2% Productivity Allowance
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim by the Union on behalf of its members is for an increase in a productivity allowance paid by the Company from 10.5% to 12.5%. Productivity based allowances were negotiated by various Unions for their members throughout the last number of years. Subsequently, the allowances agreed were increased in some instances after further discussions concerning productivity. The Union concerned is now seeking the upgrade of their members allowance and is open to discuss what productivity measures might be required. The Company's position is that it does not envisage any circumstances in which a 2% pay rise could be awarded and that the Union's claim is precluded by Towards 2016 on the basis that it is cost increasing.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd December, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th February, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union's members have contributed to the Company's recovery programme over and beyond what the Union believe should be required.The Union's members have co-operated with normal and on-going change. The imposition of increased working hours as the price for a pay increase paid already to other Unions' members without any increase in working time, would be unacceptable to the Union's members.
2 The Union believes that it is unfair not to concede its claim as the vast majority of staff employed by the Company enjoys the higher allowance. The Union is open to discuss what flexibility/productivity measures might be required.
3 The pay increase should be payable from the 1st October 2006, the date of application of the increase awarded to members of other Unions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company's position is that this claim served by the Union is precluded under Towards 2016 on the basis that it is a cost increasing claim.
2 The Company has indicated that it is willing to consider the Union's claim on the basis that specific ongoing cost offsetting measures would be agreed.
3 The total cost of conceding the claim is substantial, particularly in the current economic climate. It is unrealistic to expect that the Company could consider such a claim without substantial cost offsetting measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made to it by the parties, the Court recommends that a 2% increase be conceded in return either for a 2% increase in working hours or by any alternative measures as may be identified, or a combination of the two methods.
The increase should apply from the date of implementation of the agreed method(s).
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
23rd February, 2009______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.