FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA - AND - BORD NA MONA GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 1. Bord Na Mona Feedstock Transformation Programme 2. De-Manning Of Boora 3. No Compulsory Redundancies 4. 10% Pay Claim 5. Retirement Age 6. Financial Shared Services Project 7. Asset Management Plan 8. Redundancy Terms 9. Industrial Engineer and Management Positions - Terms And Condition 10. Redeployment Options 11. Training
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Employer's cost-reduction proposals. This 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 23rd September, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October, 2015.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers' existing terms and conditions of employment must be protected.
2 The Workers are confident that their alternative cost-reduction proposals will deliver the savings required by the Employer.
3 There should be no compulsory redundancies.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The cost-reduction proposals are required in order to ensure the future of the business and to protect employment.
2 The Employer is entitled to expect cooperation with necessary, continuous changes.
3. The redundancy terms on offer are in excess of both statutory and Public Sector terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully the comprehensive submissions made and the points made at its hearing.
It is clear to the Court that significant issues arise at this time for the Feedstock Division of the Company. The parties have confirmed to the Court that they jointly accept a requirement to achieve savings to a significant agreed level over an agreed timeframe in the Feedstock Division. The parties’ joint acceptance of the required level of savings is set against the background of their acknowledgement of the ending of the PSO, the expiry of fuel sales agreements, power stations competing on the open market and biomass co-firing.
The Court is also clear that there is concern at potential future developments in other areas of the Bord Na Mona Group including in Financial Shared Services in the future. The Court believes that the serious matters raised by both sides at the hearing and in their submissions have to be dealt with in a pragmatic and practical manner. This means that significant decisions must be made against the background of a clear understanding of the relevant facts and possibilities. All of the relevant facts and possibilities in relation to the Feedstock Division have been put before the Court in this case.
In the event that matters relating to Financial Shared Services are referred to the Court at some time in the future the Court will consider those issues at that time. It should be stated however as a general principle that the Court believes that in any circumstance where the parties believe that the issue of compulsory redundancy might arise in the future the parties should engage early on the matter in order to develop the appropriate means of dealing with future potential overstaffing / overmanning situations, e.g. re-deployment, flexibility, voluntary severance etc. In particular it is in the interest of any employee facing the possibility of loss of employment through compulsory redundancy to actively investigate all possibilities for alternative employment. The Court notes the clear rejection by the Union side of compulsory redundancy in the Group and notes the company’s commitment to make every effort to achieve agreements with the Group of Unions at all times without reliance on compulsory redundancy.
The Court has been asked to consider a wide range of issues against the background of proposals for transformation of the Feedstock Division of the company. In addition the Court has been advised of various claims put forward by the Union side including a Group-wide pay claim.
Insofar as the Feedstock Division is concerned the parties have agreed the specifics of the savings required to be achieved and both parties have set out proposals as to how those savings should be achieved. A key feature of the parties’ current dispute is a lack of agreement as to the value of the proposals tabled by both sides and the capacity of those proposals to achieve the savings which both parties have agreed are essential.
Recommendation
- •The parties should jointly engage the services of an independent financial advisor to evaluate the proposals of both parties to achieve the agreed level of savings and to report confidentially to both parties jointly. The parties should then re-engage, with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission if necessary, to develop agreed proposals which will achieve the agreed level of savings. The engagement should be structured so as to be supported at a technical level by the agreed financial advisor as required. This engagement should address all matters relating to the Feedstock Division not addressed by the Court below. That engagement should be completed in a four-week timeframe and any unresolved issues at that time can be referred back to the Court for definitive recommendation.
- •Compulsory Redundancy
- No compulsory redundancy should take place in the Feedstock Division during the lifetime of any agreement arising from the proposals presented to the Court for transformation of the Feedstock Division. This recommendation is made on the basis of full co-operation by the Union side with any strategies designed to deal with issues which could otherwise give rise to proposals for compulsory redundancy, e.g. re-deployment, flexibility etc.
- The earnings of existing staff in the Feedstock Division should be protected in the manner proposed by the company in its document of 20thAugust 2015.
In addition the Court recommends that staff in receipt of ‘overscale’ payments whose liability for working and related ‘overscale’ payment is being reduced should (a) receive compensation in the manner to be finally agreed as part of the engagements recommended above, and (b) not have any obligation to work beyond the liability associated with their new ‘overscale’ payment unless such working is appropriately remunerated.
The proposal to amend bonus arrangements of relevant staff such that bonus is ‘capped’ at 100% performance should be withdrawn.
The current cohort of casual seasonal staff should be regarded as existing employees for the purposes of the company’s undertaking as regards protection of earnings to existing employees, i.e. the current cohort of such staff should migrate in the normal way to the current established seasonal rate after completion of required service. Future casual staff should migrate to the RTF rate.
- The parties should incorporate discussion as regards the Union side pay claim into the engagements recommended above.
- •Industrial Engineer and Management positions
- It is not clear to the Court that a dispute exists as regards representational arrangements for such staff. If required, the parties should engage locally and through normal procedures to resolve any issue which might exist.
- •Redundancy terms
- In the event of any voluntary redundancy taking place the terms applying should be the November 2013 terms.
- The implementation of the transformation programme in Feedstock Division should be supported by an appropriate and adequately resourced programme of training and skill acquisition.
- The Union side should accept that Blackwater is the base for the personnel involved in this claim. The Court notes that the company is prepared to pay a re-location allowance and this should be accepted by the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
3rd November, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.