FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SOUTH TIPPERARY COUNTY COUNCIL - AND - UNITE THE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. A hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation no LCR20693.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns the Council’s proposal to withdraw a bonus payment. The dispute was the subject of Labour Court Recommendation LCR20693 which recommended that the parties should “enter into a process of negotiation so as to explore the basis upon which the Council’s proposal could be implemented. If agreement is not reached outstanding matters may be referred back to the Court.” As agreement was not reached between the parties, the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on the 8th July 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th September 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union requested the Council to provide an age profile of all the employees involved and to give a breakdown of the annual cost of the scheme if retained to the date of the last employee exiting at normal pension date.
- 2. The age profile document indicated a 35 year roll out of all employees with a significant annual cost reduction during the period.
3. The Union put forward a proposal to protect their members bonus payment for 20 years which would reduce the period of red circling by 15 years and then enter into consultation with the remaining employees regarding compensation for loss of earnings at that time.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Council takes the view that it has improved its original offer and it has also indicated that it is willing to offer a ‘transition payment’ in an attempt to ameliorate losses associated with the exit from the scheme.
2. The Council has now made ‘bonus scheme’ payments for over 6 months after the exit from the scheme despite the position agreed at the Labour Court hearing in June 2014 that the Council would continue a ‘bonus scheme payment’ for a period of 4 weeks only from the date of the hearing.
3. The Council has put forward a number of measures including compensation for the loss of the bonus scheme to be paid at twice the annual loss, 20 promotional opportunities, travel payments for general operatives using their own cars and pension entitlements protected for a significant number of staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has investigated this dispute over three hearings. On each occasion the Court urged the parties to identify an acceptable basis upon which the disputed bonus scheme could be discontinued. While the position of each side had modified since the matter first came before the Court, there is still a very considerable difference between them on the central issue in dispute.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court recommends that the final position put forward by the Council should be accepted. However, the Court recommends that for operational reasons the bonus scheme should remain in place until 31stDecember 2015, at which time compensation in the amount proposed by the Council in its final offer should be paid to each individual concerned.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
3rd October, 2014Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.