FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALSTOM TRANSPORT IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a pay claim. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st September, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Company's rates of pay are considerably lower than their comparators.
2. Members work alongside the Luas Drivers, therefore they feel that their aspirations are justified.
3. The Performance Management System is unfair and is divisive to morale.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The comparators that the Union have used are not appropriate.
2. The offer that has been made is fair and in excess of previous pay increases made to employees. This offer was not put to ballot and was rejected without any feedback.
3. The Company is not aware of the specifics of the Union's claim. A specific increase has not been put forward.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute concerns the Union's claim for a general increase in pay; reduction in the number of grades from 8 grades to 3 coupled with the introduction of incremental scales and increases to deal with anomalies which have arisen over the years due to the administration of the Company’s performance related pay scheme. The Union reference a number of comparators in support of its claim for a general pay increase.
The Company’s present contract to supply and maintain LUAS trams and the LUAS Infrastructure in Dublin is due to expire in 2019. In response to the Union’s claim the Company put forward a proposal on the various aspects of the claim, dated 19thAugust 2016. However, this was rejected without going to ballot.
Having considered the oral and written submissions made by both parties, the Court recommends that the proposal dated 19thAugust 2016 (and communicated to staff on 9thSeptember 2016) should be put to ballot of the Union’s members with the following recommended amendments:-
Prior to ballot the Company should share with the Union details of all information concerning the proposed realignment of individuals on the new three grade structure and each employee should be made aware of the implications of the proposals, i.e. where each person is currently at and how they will benefit (if any) from the realignment proposals.
The Court also recommends the following pay increases:-
- 2.5 % from 1stJune 2017
2.5 % from 1stJune 2018
2.5 % from 1stJune 2019
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th November 2016______________________
JKDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.