FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UTILITY OPERATION & MAINTENANCE SERVICE LIMITED - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Non-payment of Towards 2016 (2.5%); payment of outstanding bonus payments and cessation of pay-freeze.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns the Union's claim regarding the termination of the pay pause, the non-payment of the second module of T16, the miscalculation of the performance bonus, the non-payment of the performance bonus for 2012 and 2013 and it's removal from staff contracts of employment. Management argue that T16 is defunct and any payroll increases would have an effect on the pay of others within the ESB and it's subsidiaries who have already made significant contributions.
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 31st January, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th March, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.There is no involvement by the ESB Group of Unions in the Company, all agreements on terms and conditions of employment are negotiated between Management and the Union.
2.The Company's status as a separate stand-alone entity to the ESB is understood and that it's financial viability is the sole responsibility of it's Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1.The terms of the Collective Agreement with the ESB Group of Unions provides for a mechanism to achieve annual savings targets. Concession of this claim would mean that payroll saving would have to be recouped from other employees.
2. Five seconded employees out of a total staff of thirty six have already incurred pay reductions of up to 17% in line with theJIC bindingdetermination.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court believes that for sound industrial relations reasons it would be neither desirable nor feasible to treat those associated with these claims more favourably than the generality of ESB staff in respect to the matters now in dispute. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of those claims.
The Court notes the Union's contention that the generality of ESB staff obtained off-setting concessions in consideration of their agreement to the adjustments necessary to address the payroll crises. If that is so, those associated with these claims should be afforded equivalent or pro-rata concessions.
The Court recommends that the parties engage for the purpose of identifying what if any concessions were afforded to ESB staff in consideration of the relevant Agreements. Equivalent concessions should then be afforded to those associated with these claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
31st March 2014______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.