FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - ASSOCIATION OF HIGHER CIVIL AND PUBLIC SERVANTS PUBLIC SERVICE EXECUTIVE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. IT Performance Related Incentive Payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions on behalf of their members currently employed within the IT Department of An Post. The dispute relates to the Unions' claim that the Employer has unilaterally taken the decision to alter the system of Performance Related Incentive Payments with the introduction of a cap placed on the amount of performance related bonus that can be achieved. The Unions contend that the Employer unilaterally introduced the cap on bonus payments after previously set targets and objectives had already been achieved by employees within the IT sector of the Organisation. As a result, Workers have experienced a significant loss in income after having completed the requisite tasks in order to receive the bonus payment. The Employer rejects the Unions' position, arguing that it had no alternative other than to impose the cap on payments. The Employer further asserts that this decision cannot be reversed given the current economic position of the Company.
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 9th August, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th November, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Workers have been treated in an inequitable manner by the Employer as a result of the unilateral imposition of a cap on bonus payments.
2. Workers have delivered and achieved set targets and objectives and are entitled to be remunerated appropriately as a result. The Unions are therefore seeking the retrospective application of the bonus payment amounts based on work completed in 2011 and that were subsequently withheld from Workers.
3. The Employer is acting in breach of the terms of a Collective Agreement reached with both Unions.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is currently in a loss-making position and cannot afford to continue to fund the bonus payments.
2. It is current practice within the Company that performance related payments are discretionary and subject to overall Company performance.
3. The Employer is not in a financial position to concede the Unions' claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
There is an Agreement in place between the parties that governs the salary structure of Information Technology Staff. It includes an element of performance payments based on the achievement of targets set annually between management and the individual staff member. In 2011 targets were set with each member of staff in accordance with the terms of that Agreement. In early 2012 each staff member's performance was measured against those targets.
In accordance with the terms of the Agreement staff members were entitled to expect that their pay for 2011 would be adjusted in line with their individual performance. Not to do so amounts to an infringement of their entitlements under the Agreement and such an action cannot be supported by the Court.
Accordingly the Court determines that there is merit in the Union's claim and recommends that management abide by the full terms of the Agreement including payment of all outstanding monies due to the relevant employees.
The Court notes that discussions on a restructuring of the Agreement are in progress at present. The Court recommends that the parties apply themselves to this task with a view to concluding a revised agreement as a matter of urgency.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
29th November 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.