LCR21241

RECOMMENDATION

(RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR21241)

CD/16/164

RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR21241

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015

SECTION 26(5), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :               

TRANSDEV IRELAND LIMITED- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman               :             Mr Duffy

Employer Member :              Ms Cryan

Worker Member   :               Ms Tanham

SUBJECT:

1. Terms & Conditions Of Employment

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute came before the Court for investigation pursuant to section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. On Tuesday 24 May 2016, having regard to the public interest implications the Court invited the parties to participate in a full Court investigation of the issues in dispute. That invitation was accepted by both parties and the Court conducted its investigation on Thursday 26 May 2016.

RECOMMENDATION :

Introduction

The Court undertook this investigation pursuant to section 26(5) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 having concluded that there were exceptional circumstances warranting its intervention.

The background to the dispute lies in the failure of the parties to agree terms for the renewal of a collective agreement governing the terms and conditions of certain members of SIPTU, following the expiry in 2014 of an earlier collective agreement. The dispute was the subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation (LRC 21097 refers) issued in December 2015. That Recommendation was rejected by the Union. The matters in dispute were also the subject of several conciliation conferences at the Workplace Relations Commission resulting in proposals which were subsequently rejected by the workers concerned. The Union has been engaged in continuing industrial action, involving intermittent work-stoppages, in furtherance of the dispute since 6^th February 2016. Those work stoppages have resulted in significant loss to both the Company and the workers and have caused hardship to the public who use the Luas service as their normal mode of transport.

In the course of the investigation it became clear to the Court that the parties have become entrenched in their respective positions on all issues of significance. The Court is convinced that neither party can realistically hope to achieve a settlement of the dispute on all of the terms to which they now aspire no matter how fervently they believe that their current position is justifiable. Consequently, the only basis upon which a settlement can be found lies in a fair compromise on terms that are objectively fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances now prevailing.

The recommendations that follow are directed towards that end.

Overall Approach

On acceptance of this Recommendation the parties should conclude a collective agreement incorporating the terms set out herein. The agreement should commence on the date of acceptance of this Recommendation and it should conclude on 31^st December 2020. The parties should jointly apply to the Court to have the agreement registered in the Register of Employment Agreements pursuant to section 8 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2015. Any dispute or difference that arises in relation to the interpretation of the agreement should be referred to the Court for resolution in accordance with section 12(1) of that Act.

Not later than 1^st July 2020 the parties should commence negotiations on a new collective agreement to take effect on the expiry of the agreement to which this Recommendation relates.

In line with normal practice the agreement should contain a provision precluding the serving or processing of any cost increasing claims during the currency of the agreement.

Productivity

Maximum Duty Spread

Amongst the productivity measures sought by the Company is an increase in the maximum duty spread from 9.00 to 9.30 hours. Having regard to all the circumstances of this dispute and in the context of the proposals contained in this Recommendation as a whole, the Court does not recommend that the Company’s position on this matter be conceded.

Other Measures

The Court does, however, recommend the following: -

• Drivers should provide full cooperation with the extension of the Luas service to Broombridge in terms of its operation and any associated preparatory work.
• On duty spare Drivers should cover all available work as directed by CCR in their hours of duty and manage their own breaks.
• All accrued annual leave should be utilised by August 2017.
• A facility to book on in the absence of a TL or TS should apply. Any issues in relation to instructions issues or any problems with booking on should be referred to the Control function of the service.

Outstanding Non Cost Issues

It is noted that there are a number of non-cost issues that need to be agreed and incorporated in a new collective agreement. A list of these issues was provided to the Court in the Union’s submission. These issues were not resolved in earlier discussions between the parties although they were addressed in the earlier reference to the Court leading to Recommendation LCR21097.

In the context of an overall resolution of all outstanding matters it is imperative that these issues be resolved without further delay. In the absence of any prior discussion or negotiation between the parties on these issues it is not possible for the Court to make definitive recommendations at this time on how they should be resolved. Consequently, the Court recommends that the issues referred to in the Union’s submission, which are not cost increasing in nature, be referred to the Workplace Relations Commission for conciliation within four weeks from the date of acceptance of this recommendation. That process should continue for a period of not more than six weeks. If, at the end of that period, final agreement is not reached outstanding issues should be referred back to the Court for final adjudication.

Partner’s Pension

The Court recommends that this matter be resolved in line with the Company’s proposal and consistent with the arrangements applicable to other grades.

Late Grid

The possibility of assigning responsibility for working the late grid in the context of the proposed recruitment of additional drivers should also be addressed in the negotiations recommended in respect of outstanding non cost issues.

New Entrants

The Court notes the Company’s proposal to introduce new lower points on the existing salary scale which are intended to apply to new entrants. The Court also notes the Union’s position on that proposal.

In the context of the recommendation in respect to productivity measures, the Court does not consider it appropriate to recommend that the Company alter its position on that matter at this time. The Court does recommend that, not later than 18 months from the date of acceptance of this recommendation, a review be undertaken of these lower points for the purpose of ascertaining if their continuance is justified. That review should be conducted by reference to the outcome of a review to be undertaken between Public Service Unions and Employers of similar pay arrangements in the Public Service.

The review should be undertaken by an independent person or persons agreed between the parties. In default of agreement the Court will make an appointment.

Pay

The Court recommends that the following salary scales should apply: -

Note:   The Long Service Increments (LSI) are applicable to those who have completed 3 full years at point 9 of the scale.

New lower points are applicable only to new entrants (see recommendation in relation to review of new entrant rates).

The increases provided for on 1^st January 2020 and 1^st September 2020 should   be applied to salaries including the long service increments.

Those not on the maximum point of the scale should continue to receive incremental increases in the normal way on the anniversary of their employment.

In addition to the salaries set out above, a 6.5% bonus will be payable, in 2017 and beyond, to those who meet the criteria for payment, giving total remuneration at the maximum of the scale of €53,220 when this Recommendation is fully implemented.

Lead-in Payment

The Court recommends that, subject to this Recommendation being accepted by 3rd June 2016, each Driver should receive a lead-in payment of €750, to be paid between October and December 2016. The Court understands that €500 of this amount can be paid without statutory deductions.

Bonus

The Court notes the Union’s claim for the restoration of the 6.5% bonus lost in consequence of industrial action. The Court does not recommend concession of that claim.

The Court recommends that the parties should have discussions with a view to reaching agreement on the criteria to apply in respect of that bonus in 2017 and beyond.

Relationships

There is cause for grave concern at the fractious nature of the relationship between management and those who are party to this dispute, which became manifest in the course of this investigation.

It is clear that considerable effort will be required to restore normal working relations within the employment. While responsibility for achieving that objective rests on both sides it is a central duty of employers to ensure that adequate and fair procedures are in place to establish and support a working environment that is characterised by mutual trust and confidence and that those procedures are applied justly and fairly. It is equally incumbent on the Union and its members to put the events of the past number of months behind them and to work in partnership with management in restoring normality.

The Court recommends that immediately following the resolution of this dispute the parties jointly request the Workplace Relations Commission to provide the services of its Advisory Service to undertake an in-depth review of the totality of relationships within the employment and to assist them in restoring normal constructive engagement on all matters of mutual interest.

In this context, the Court notes that proceedings have been commenced by the Union under the Payment of Wages Act 1991 in relation to certain alleged deductions from the wages of those associated with this dispute. The Court is concerned that the prosecution of these proceedings could give rise to further acrimony between the parties and would not be conducive to the restoration of normal working relationships.

Consequently, the Court recommends that on acceptance of this recommendation, and in the context of the parties committing to the restoration of normal working relations, the Company should: -

1. Restore the 10% pay cut and pay arrears of monies deducted.
2. Restore the sick-pay scheme and pay outstanding amounts due to those who were certified as unfit for work during the period in which the scheme was suspended.
3. Restore those who were removed from the payroll for part of their shift on days of normal working during the dispute and pay arrears of wages in respect of the period of their removal.

The Union should withdraw all claims made under the Payment of Wages Act 1991.

Review of Relative Position of Drivers Remuneration

In the course of this investigation it was intimated to the Court that the pay claim being pursued by the Union was influenced by a belief on the part of Drivers that their current rate of remuneration is out of line with that of comparable workers in similar employment in other European countries. That appears not to have been previously stated as a justification for the claims pursued. Nor has any evidence been provided to substantiate that contention. Nevertheless, in so far as that is a factor influencing the position taken by the Union it should be properly tested.

Any comparison with similar workers in other countries is only legitimate if it takes account of wage levels generally within the countries with which comparison is drawn and the cost of living within those countries. Other factors must also be taken into account such as the relative position of such workers on internal comparison with those in comparable employments within the country concerned. In any such comparison the totality of pay and employment conditions must also be taken into account. Finally any such comparison would have to be based on properly drawn and independently verified data.

The Court recommends that within 18 months of the date of acceptance of this Recommendation the parties should appoint an agreed independent specialist to undertake a comparative exercise by reference to the overall remuneration of similar workers in appropriate external comparable employments. In default of agreement the Court will make an appointment. This exercise should be overseen by a steering group representative of Management and the Union. The exercise should be completed within 12 months of its commencement.

Any anomaly identified by this exercise should be taken into account in negotiations for a replacement of the agreement to which this Recommendation relates.

                                                                     Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

                                                                       Kevin Duffy

30 May 2016                                               ______________________

MN                                                                Chairman

NOTEEnquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.                       

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit History:           Rev.          Editor                                                  Edit Date

                                97.             Michael Neville/entemp                    30/05/2016 15:22:57

                                96.             Michael Neville/entemp                    30/05/2016 15:22:57

                                95.             Michael Neville/entemp                    30/05/2016 15:11:28

                                94.             Michael Neville/entemp                    30/05/2016 12:32:27

* Only past five edits are shown