FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN PORT COMPANY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Issues concerning changes in work practices in the Maintenance and Service Department.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of three of its members in relation to outstanding issues resulting from the proposal of changes to work practices in the Maintenance and Service Department of Dublin Port Company. The dispute specifically refers to three named individuals and the loss of earnings involved as a result of role re-structuring in the Department. The Union is of the strong view that its members should not face a reduction in pay as a result of changes sought by the Employer. While each individual Worker's claim presents a separate set of unique circumstances, there is a common underlying factor in that each Worker is faced with the potential loss of the payment of a long established acting allowance. The Union on behalf of its members is seeking the retention of these allowances, or alternatively a compensation buy-out payment for the loss of same. The Employer rejects the Union's claims and agreement could not be reached despite lengthy negotiations between the parties.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of several Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The result of one such Conference was a set of proposals presented to the parties in September, 2011. Negotiations continued with the LRC proposals forming the basis of these on-going discussions. While progress was made and agreement reached on a number of the proposals, a number of outstanding issues remained. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th November, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 21st February, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union strongly contends that its members should not suffer any loss in pay as a result of the changes proposed by the Employer.
2. The Union asserts that the Employer is in a strong financial position and is capable to continue to pay the allowances currently enjoyed by its members.
3. The Union is seeking the retention of the allowances and where applicable, compensation as a result of the loss of any such allowance due to the re-structuring of roles.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The reduction in salaries and re-structuring of roles sought by the Employer are essential in order to remain competitive in the current economic climate.
2. The Employer asserts that the LRC proposals, which were recommended for acceptance by both parties, clearly outlines that all acting allowances would cease to be paid going forward.
3. The Employer is not in a position to concede to the Union's claim to continue to pay previously agreed acting allowances.
RECOMMENDATION:
It was agreed at the outset of the hearing that the case before the Court concerned three named workers and these matters were the final outstanding issues arising in relation to implementation of the New Working Model for General Operatives in the Maintenance & Services Department. A facilitator was commissioned to carry out a report concerning some aspect of the proposals contained in the agreement. This exercise was carried out during the Summer 2008 and completed in November 2008.
The Union sought the retention of acting up allowances for all three workers involved. It stated that the proposed agreement provided that no individual worker would suffer a loss of wages as a consequence of the agreement. The Union told the Court that while it rejected the facilitator’s report however it accepted that it would form the basis for the formulation of the new agreement. This report stated :
- “Where an employee has had an allowance paid on a full time basis over three years the Company have added this allowance to the individuals pay on a personal to holder basis.”
The report also stated that where individuals have held an allowance for less than three years the Company will compensate these individuals.
The Company stated that it was clearly encompassed in the proposals for the agreement that all standing/ acting payments would cease. The Company stated that it no longer required the position of Storeman and if it decided to fill the role of Supervisor in the future the position would be advertised internally, and the proposed agreement allowed for two new posts as Team Leader. The Company told the Court that while it had several reservations and concerns regarding many aspects of the facilitator’s report it was willing to accept the report in its entirety subject to agreement on certain issues which were not fully addressed within the Report.
The Court notes that the proposed agreement had been the subject of a lengthy and exhaustive negotiation process since 2004, culminating in a set of proposals by the Labour Relations Commission in September 2011 which both sides recommended for acceptance.
Having considered the oral and written submission made by both parties on the remaining issues the Court recommends as follows:-
Mr S, Acting Storeman
The Claimant has been in receipt of an acting allowance of €204.24 per week since November 2004. The Company submitted that it was agreed that he would hold this acting role for the duration of the negotiations on the above-mentioned agreement. The Union sought the retention of the allowance in accordance with the facilitator’s report as he had held an allowance on a full time basis for over three yearsby Summer 2008.
The Company disputed his entitlement to retain the allowance on the basis that an agreement had been entered into in 2004, on the retirement of the previous Acting Storeman that his pension payment would reflect the allowance and that the General Operative (Mr S) currently holding the allowance would be compensated by way of a buy-out of the allowance. The Company stated that this was reflected in the facilitator’s recommendations.
Due to the ambiguity on this issue the Court requested both parties to supply additional information in support of their respective positions. Both sides responded to the Court, however, the Court has not been able to reconcile the issue. Consequently the Court has decided in the interest of fairness to both sides to recommend that the Claimant should retain 50% of the allowance on a personal to holder basis.
Mr K, Acting Suction Sweeper Driver
The Claimant has been in receipt of an acting allowance of approximately €16 per week since March 2008.
The Court recommends that he should be compensated for the loss of the acting allowance by the payment of one and three quarters times the annual loss of the allowance.
Mr K, Acting Supervisor
The Claimant has been in receipt of a Supervisor’s acting allowance of €561.36 per week since November 2010. The Union sought the retention of his role as a Supervisor or alternatively retention of the allowance. The Company stated that it did not require the role of Supervisor and submitted that it was agreed that he would hold this acting role for the duration of the negotiations on the above-mentioned agreement. It rejected the Union’s claim for the retention of the allowance as he did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the facilitator’s report as he did not hold the allowance for three years by Summer 2008 .
The Union told the Court that the Claimant had held a previous acting role as Assistant Supervisor for over twenty years and that this allowance was red-circled to him in 2000. The amount of that allowance was €161.36 per week.
The Court finds that the Claimant does not fulfil the criteria for retention of the Supervisor’s allowance or for compensation for a buy-out of that allowance, however, the Court is satisfied that the Claimant’s acting allowance of €161.36 per week was red-circled in 2000 and accordingly recommends that he should retain the latter allowance on a personal to holder basis.
Conclusion
The Court recommends that the Labour Relations Commission proposals of September 2011 should be amended to include the above Recommendations in respect of the three remaining outstanding issues and then the proposals should be put to a ballot of the Union’s members as a final composite package.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th March 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.