FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - CIVIL, PUBLIC & SERVICES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Frontline Supervisors.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court arises from a disagreement regarding the terms and conditions of employment for a new supervisory grade (Frontline Supervisors) which is replacing the Staff Officer grade. The matter was previously the subject of a Labour Court hearing on 13th July 2011. At the end of that hearing the parties were asked to meet again at local level to which they agreed in order to clarify the impact of certain proposed measures and if no agreement could be reached, the parties could revert back to the Court in writing seeking a further hearing.
A range of issues had previously been referred to the Labour Relations Commission by the Company for Conciliation. As no agreement was reached the matters were referred to the Labour Court on the 18th May 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. An initial Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th July 2011 and on the 30th January 2012 the Court held a further hearing as requested by the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The "Hay Pay Range" pay methodology scheme would damage the Union's ability to engage in collective bargaining. The Union is principally opposed to performance-related pay incentives.
2. Discussions with the Company regarding the non-application of flexitime arrangements to the new posts has had some limited success in so far as a watered-down scheme is proposed on a "take-it or leave-it" basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has moved some distance regarding flexitime and a hybrid scheme is now on offer which includes some parameters regarding core-time.
2. A comprehensive scheme outlining options is laid out to address pay rate assimilation of existing staff to the new supervisory posts.
3. The proposals as they currently stand are the minimum necessary in order to run a cost-effective and efficient service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the extensive oral and written submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes the wide gap between the parties on all of the issues in dispute. The Court also notes that the jobs in question are new and that there is inevitably some uncertainty surrounding the precise terms and conditions of employment that should apply to them.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company offer as amended by its letter of 28thJuly 2011 be implemented on an interim, without prejudice, basis to facilitate the establishment and natural development of the posts.
With the benefit of twelve months' experience of the actual jobs in operation the parties should revisit this matter with a view, if and/or where necessary, to making any appropriate adjustments to the terms and conditions attaching to these posts with a further view to ensuring that they are both internally equitable and externally comparable with other positions inside and any relevant comparators outside the Company.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
6th February, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.