FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : HP CDS IRELAND - AND - IRISH BANK OFFICIALS' ASSOCIATION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Claim for an increase in pay and the implementation of a fair and transparent system of pay determination.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a pay claim and a fair and transparent system of pay determination for the Workers. The Union stated that the employees of the parent company HP had received pay increases in recent years and a variable performance bonus most years. Many of the Union’s members in HP DCS were previous direct employees of HP who were required to transfer to HP CDS when the business was reorganised. They have seen their former colleagues receive pay increases while their own pay has been frozen.
On the 10th October 2014 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th February 2014. The Employer did not attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Many of the Union’s members have not received a pay increase for over 7 years.
2. Employee of HP CDS in the UK have a pay agreement which provides for increases.
3. There are no published pay scales, reference points or ranges in the Company. The members have no understanding of how pay is currently determined in HP CDS.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns claims made by the Union for (i) an increase in pay and (ii) implementation of a fair and transparent system of pay determination. The Employer did not attend the hearing.
The Union submitted that many of its members had not received a pay increase for over seven years and that according to its survey of the market, employees in the Company were underpaid relative to the sectoral norm. The Union lodged a formal claim with the Company in September 2014 for 7% increase in pay.
Furthermore, the Union submitted that as there is no transparent pay determination process in place, employees have no knowledge of how pay is determined in the Company or whether there is any reasonable expectation of securing pay increases in the future. Accordingly it sought the introduction of a structured pay determination process to take account of key factors such as inflation, cost of living and company performance.
Having considered the Union’s position on the claims before it, the Court recommends that the Company should increase pay by 3% with retrospective effect to 1stSeptember 2014 for period of sixteen months, until 31stDecember 2015.
The Court notes that in November 2011 under the auspices of an independent mediator a “Pay and Performance Review” strategy was proposed which recommended that a number of reference points including performance improvement rating, general performance, comparisons between base salary and market benchmarks for each grade should be applied to determine any pay award. These proposals, emerged from a process in which both the Company and the Union engaged and were outlined in a document dated 14thNovember 2011, by the independent mediator. The Court recommends that this process should now be implemented in full.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
23rd February, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.