FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - AHCPS PSEU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1 Pay Progression - 2 Review of IT Pay System
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Unions in relation to Pay Progression and Review of the Pay System of IT staff. The Company has put forward proposals in relation to the issues in dispute which the Union does not accept. The parties are in dispute in relation to a) Performance Related Incentive Payments, (PRIP) b) Rating Scale for Performance Management, c) Annual pay range reviews, d) Pay Ranges e) Personal/Pay Progression The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 7th January 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1st May, 2013.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3 1Pay Progression:-The Unions have raised concerns in relation to the lack of progression and the fact that no pay increases have been applied since 2008. They are seeking that personal progression be restored retrospectively to the date of its cessation.
2Performance Related Incentive Payments: -The Unions do not accept that 50% of the PRIP is to be based on Company performance. The current position is that 100% of PRIP is based on individual performance targets which should not be changed.
3Rating Scale for Performance Management:- A four point performance rating scale is more appropriate than a five point scale as more consideration is required on a smaller scale. If the five point scale were used the mid point would be the preferred point and workers may not be given a fair performance appraisal.
4Annual Pay Range reviews: -The Unions do not accept Management's proposals on the changes to the reviews. The reviews should continue to be based on the higher of market movement or National Wage Agreement awards.
5Pay Ranges: -The Company proposals on the pay ranges is likely to result in a loss of earnings for worker's which the Unions cannot accept. It will be difficult under the new ranges to
go beyond the median point which will effectively become the new maximum.
6Personal Progression:-The Unions do not accept management's proposals on the issues as they are unfair and will inevitably result in continued lack of progression for IT staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1Pay Progression: -Management cannot concede the Unions claim on this issue. There has been a pay freeze in place since 2008 and the current financial circumstances of the Company require it to introduce cost reduction measures going forward.
2Performance Related Incentive Payments: -The Company's proposal on this issue is fair and in line with the PRIP system in place in other parts of the organisation. The Company has also agreed to an income protection system for the first two years of any new agreement on the issue.
3Rating Scale for Performance Management:- The Company wishes to align the same five point performance management rating system to IT staff as applies to all other staff in the organisation.
4Annual Pay Range reviews: -The Company wishes to align the reviews in the same way that they apply to other employees who are on PRIP. The Company wishes to eliminate the link with National Wage Agreements and link future salary increases to market movement only.
5Pay Ranges:-There are wide gaps between the minimum and maximum salary levels of IT staff. The Company is seeking to introduce ranges based on the market median of no less than 80% as a minimum and 120% at the maximum, which is in line with Company pay policy.
6Personal Pay Progression:-Under Management's proposals workers will progress through the ranges on the basis of performance against overall objectives. All pay increases are not guaranteed and will require Board approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submission s of the parties and recommends as follows in relation to the matters in dispute: -
1.Unions’ claim for Application of Pay Progression
Having regard to the current Company-wide pay freeze the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
2.Company Proposal on Performance Related Incentive Payments
The Court recommends that the Company’s final proposal for changes in the PRIP arrangements be accepted. This acceptance should be conditional on the Company’s offer to provide an income protection scheme made at conciliation being implemented.
3.Company’s Proposal on Rating Scale for Performance Management
The Company’s proposal under this heading should be accepted.
4.Annual Pay Range Reviews
The Court does not recommend concession of the Company’s proposal on annual pay range reviews and recommends the continuance of the current arrangements
5.Pay Ranges
The Court does not recommend concession of the Company’s proposal on pay ranges and recommends continuance of the current arrangements.
6.Personal Progression through the Ranges
Having regard to its recommendations at 4 and 5 above the Court does not recommend concession of this aspect of the Company’s proposal
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th June 2013______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.