FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD GAIS - AND - BGE GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Fitters' productivity agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a commercial semi-state body established under the Gas Act, 1976. The Company operates in the energy supply industry and is headquartered in Cork with offices across the country. The Company employs in excess of one thousand employees.
The Unions claim that the Company failed to apply national wage rounds to productivity payments since 2003 as should have been the case in accordance with the Fitters' Productivity Agreement (1992). The Company rejects the claim.
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 16th December, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd July, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The scheme was introduced in 1992 as an attempt by the Company to reduce the amount of overtime worked by the Fitters. The scheme worked reasonably well from 1992 until 2002 when the Company, without consulting with the Unions, decided to change the rules of the scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Fitters have not disputed the productivity rates until the issue was referred to the LRC in late 2011. They were fully aware that there was no change in the rate applied since 2002 and had accepted it.
2. The last increase was applied in 2002 as part of the National Wage Agreement and during the negotiations of the R2000 Procedural Agreement the scheme was eliminated.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Group of Unions’ claim that the Company arbitrarily made changes to the 1992 Fitters’ Productivity Agreement in 2003 when it ceased paying national wage agreement increases to the top two points of the scheme. The Unions sought restoration of the agreement and consultation with individual Fitters on addressing any losses incurred.
The Company denied that it had arbitrarily made changes to the scheme but submitted that changes had come about following the introduction of a new pay band for Fitters as a result of aHay Managementexercise.
Having carefully considered the positions of both sides, the Court notes that there is no dispute between the parties that the agreement of 1992 provides for the productivity rates to increase in line with national wage agreements. Furthermore, the Court notes that no increases were applied since 2003 and the issue was not formally raised by the Unions until 2009.
In all the circumstances of this case the Court is of the view that for whatever reason the issue of increasing the top two productivity rates lay dormant from 2003 until it was officially raised in 2009. The Court recommends that the parties should now enter into discussions on the application of the 1992 Agreement from the time the matter was raised in 2009 onwards.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th July, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.