FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD GÁIS - AND - BORD GÁIS GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (A) Lead-in payment (B) Grade increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Unions' claim for compensation for co-operation with the Company's transformation programme. s which were offered to the Workers. This 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 16th November, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th December, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Workers' continuous co-operation with change is the reason why the Company is so profitable.
2.In recognition of the considerable changes to work practices now being sought by the Company, the Unions are seeking a lead-in payment for all staff.
3.The Unions are also seeking an upgrade for the staff who will be required to operate new hand held terminals.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The changes sought by the Company are necessary to ensure its future profitabilty.
2. These changes are covered by the terms of the Response 2000 Agreement.
3.Accordingly, it would not be appropriate to compensate the Workers for co-operating with the introduction of these changes.
RECOMMENDATION:
While Clause 2.3 of the Response 2000 Agreement was extensively relied upon in the course of the hearing, both parties agreed that the Court is not being asked to decide this case by way of an interpretation of that agreement.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to the Unions’ claims: -
Lead-in Payment
It appears to the Court that there is a lack of clarity surrounding the criteria against which the Company decided to make bonus / compensatory payments to some employees involved in preparing the Network Transformation Programme and not to others. In the Court’s view there should be transparency in that process so as to avoid any perception of unfairness amongst those who did not receive payments.
The Court recommends that the Company should now inform the Union of the criteria or other considerations taken into account in deciding to make these payments. Any employee associated with this claim who can demonstrate that he or she met the criteria used, in whole or in part, should be entitled to make a claim on the Company. The Company should consider any such claims on their merits on the same basis as applied in the case of those who received payment. Any dispute in relation to individuals arising from this process should be dealt with through the internal procedures of the Company.
Hand-held Technology
On the facts surrounding what is involved in the operation of the new technology the Court does not consider that any adjustments in the terms and conditions of those concerned is warranted. Accordingly the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th December, 2010______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.