FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - CWU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Group of Unions for a 6% pay increase.The dispute was originally before the Court in October 2015. Following the original Hearing both parties engaged in further discussions. However, they were unable to agree to a satisfactory outcome. The matter was referred back to the Labour Court on the 22nd of March 2016.A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th April, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1.Postal staff have not received a pay increase since 1st August, 2008.
2. A pay increase of 6% should take place from January 1st 2016. A pay increase from January 2014 was originally sought.
3. The process must be agreed to provide for future increases.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The core An Post Company is currently in a loss making cycle. The overall An Post Group (Core An Post Company and its Subsidiary companies) returned to a modest profit in 2014 after 2 years of losses.
2. The awarding of retrospective pay increases is not appropriate.
3. No decision should be made regarding the 6% pay increase at this time. The parties should continue discussions and reach agreement on the additional efficiency measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
This referral arises from Labour Court Recommendation LCR21053 and relates to the Unions’ claim for 6% increase in pay with effect from 1stJanuary 2014. The dispute was originally before the Court in October 2015. An effective pay freeze has applied to those associated with the claim since 2008. In Recommendation LCR21053 the Court observed that in those circumstances it was understandable that the trade union group would seek a pay increase. However, the Court went on to note that company was experiencing significant financial and commercial difficulties which would have to be taken into account in formulating a recommendation on how the dispute should be resolved.
While on that occasion the Court did not consider it appropriate to make a definitive recommendation on the Unions’ claim it did acknowledge that the continuance of the pay freeze was not a viable proposition.
The Court went on to recommend as follows:
1.The parties should engage in further discussion in respect of the range of additional efficiency measures raised in the course of negotiations at the LRC and seek to reach agreement on as many of these measures as possible.
2.The parties should identify and verify the potential of these measures to fund in part increases in the pay of the workers associated with this claim.
3.The discussions should commence as soon as practicable and should conclude not later than three months from the date of this Recommendation. The assistance of the monitoring Group should be sought, if necessary, to facilitate agreement within that timeframe.
4.If the parties fail to reach final agreement within the proposed time frame outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation. Should that be necessary the Court will facilitate the parties with an early resumption of the hearing.
The parties have engaged in the process recommended but final agreement was not reached, although significant progress was made. In particular, the Unions are now prepared to consider a pay increase with effect from 1stJanuary 2016 and have identified cost efficiency measures in respect to revised sick pay arrangements and revised VS / VER schemes. It has not, however, been possible to agree on the details of revised arrangements in respect to these matters and this has become an impediment to final agreement.
The Unions are also prepared to enter further discussions with the Company on the circumstances in which temporary staff can be recruited and on the current arrangements on what is described as ‘home garaging of Company vehicles’. This issue relates only to grades represented by CWU.
Finally, the parties have agreed in principle that any pay increase will be part funded by savings generated by productivity / efficiency measures on a 50:50 basis. That is to say, 50% of any increase awarded will be funded by such efficiency measures with the remailing 50% being met from the Company’s own resources.
Against that background the Court considers it appropriate to make further interim recommendations directed at assisting the parties to reengage in further intensive discussions with a view to reaching final agreement within a short timeframe.
Accordingly, the Court recommends a two phase process as follows: -
Phase 1
- (i)The current pay freeze should continue up to 30thApril 2016(ii)An increase of 2.5 % should apply with effect from 1stMay 2016
(iii)Any further increase in pay that may be agreed on foot of the Unions’ claim for a 6% increase should not be applicable before 1stJuly 2017, unless otherwise agreed.
(iv)The pay freeze and pay increase of 2.5% recommended at (i) and (ii) above should be implemented when the parties have concluded agreement on the additional cost saving measures required to part fund the proposed increase. These discussions should continue over, but not extend beyond, a four week period from the date of this Recommendation.
(v)The internal Monitoring Group should oversee the timely implementation of the additional efficiency measures and verify the savings achieved in conjunction with the parties.
(vi)The savings achieved should be sufficient to fund 50% of the costs of increases in pay recommended at (ii) above and any further increases recommended at (iii) above. Should it become necessary, the implementation dates recommended should be adjusted to ensure this funding ratio is achieved.
(vii)For the avoidance of doubt, the reference in this Recommendation to ‘additional efficiency measures’ means measures that are in addition to measures that are already provided for in existing Company / Union Agreements and does not include normal ongoing change.
(viii)In the course of the hearing, the Court was informed that the Monitoring Group is preparing a final draft on an Industrial Relations and Industrial Peace Protocol. The Court further recommends that the parties complete this process within two weeks from the date of this Recommendation.
In order to expedite the process of reaching final agreement, the Court recommends as follows in respect to the additional efficiency measures that have been identified: -
Sick Pay
It is noted that the current sick pay scheme corresponds to that which applied in the Civil Service before the implementation of Labour Court Recommendation LCR20335 on sick pay arrangements for civil servants.
The Court recommends that the Company scheme should now be brought into line with that currently applicable in the Civil Service, with effect from 1stMay 2016.
New Voluntary Severance Terms
The Court recommends that the existing VS/VER scheme should close on 30thApril 2016. With effect from 1stMay 2016 it should be replaced with new arrangements that are in line with the terms on which voluntary severance which are generally offered in the Public Service. In that regard the Court recommends the following terms: -
(1)Any existing early retirement provisions of the existing scheme should be discontinued
(2)The proposed new voluntary severance scheme should provide for the following: -(a)6 weeks’ pay per year of service inclusive of statutory redundancy pay, subject to:-
(i). An overall maximum payment equal to a total of 104 weeks’ pay,
(ii). The total amount payable to any individual should not exceed half of what he or she would earn up to their normal retirement age, provided that amount is less than the 104 times the weekly pay of that individual(iii) Employees who have achieved the age at which they are entitled to retire without actuarial reduction under the 2015 amendment to the Superannuation Schemes should not be eligible to avail of the scheme.
All other issues which are currently the subject of discussions between the parties in relation to cost efficiencies affecting individual Unions should continue with the assistance of the Monitoring Group with a view to reaching agreement on these matters within a period not exceed four weeks from the date on which this Recommendation is accepted. In the case of those represented by CWU, these discussions should be directed at finalising agreement on the Company’s proposal to cease the arrangements for ‘Home Garaging of Company Vans’. In that regard it is noted that in conciliation agreement was reached in principle on red-circling a number of individuals who currently have this facility.
If agreement is reached on this issue (Home Garaging) it, together with the generic measures recommended above, should be sufficient to cover the CWU contribution of 50% of the cost of the recommended 2.5% pay increase.
In the case of grades represented by the other Unions associated with the claim, discussions should likewise continue with the assistance of the Monitoring Group with a view to reaching final agreement within the four week period specified.
Facility to Refer Back
While every effort should be made by the parties, with the active involvement and assistance of the Monitoring Group, to reach final agreement on all matters referred to in this part of the Recommendation, in the event of that not being possible outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Phase 2 – Process for Final Disposal of the Unions’ Claim (6% Increase)
When final agreement is reached on the matters coming within Phase 1 of the process recommended, the parties should engage in further negotiation on the outstanding part of the Unions’ claim over a period up to, but not exceeding, six months from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
The object of these negotiations should be to identify further efficiency measures, in addition to those referred to earlier in this Recommendation, which will fund 50% of the cost of any further pay increases that may be agreed for implementation not earlier than 1stJuly 2017, unless otherwise agreed. Any such additional efficiency measures and the savings that they will generate should be subject to verification by the Monitoring Group, The Monitoring Group should also be assigned the role of verifying the achievement of these savings and, in that context, it should be involved in determining the implementation date of the pay increase agreed.
In the event of a shortfall arising between the parties in terms of the additional measures and their associated savings, which are necessary to fund 50% of the cost of the increase recommended in this Recommendation, the implementation date and / or the amount of the increase will be adjusted to equate to the funds generated on a 50:50 basis, as outlined earlier in this Recommendation. The Monitoring Group should be assigned responsibility for adjudicating on any disagreement that may arise in this regard.
Any dispute or disagreement between the parties on any of these matters, including agreement on additional efficiency measures, the savings that they would generate and the amount of any increase, should be referred to the Monitoring Group for adjudication.
In the unlikely event of final agreement not been reached in the process recommended outstanding matters may be referred back to the Court
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th April 2016______________________
JKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.