FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PERMANENT TSB - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay, Performance & Reward Agenda
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 3 August 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30 August 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An increase in basic pay of between 10% to 12% is sought by the Union.
2. The restoration of incremental salary increases for staff on incremental scales.
3. The retention of the agreed performance management system.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company submits that the new salary ranges have been benchmarked against three competitors and are market competitive.
2. The performance management system meets all mandatory regulatory and governance standards.
3. The company have agreed to pay all eligible staff a once off 4% lump sum and a 2% pensionable pay increase as part of the overall modernisation package.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that the parties have engaged extensively at the Workplace Relations Commission to address a complex agenda and notes that a proposal emerged from that process which sought to address the issues between the parties. That proposal did not find acceptance by the Trade Union.
The Court has received submissions as regards the trading position of the bank and as regards agreements reached in competitor institutions. The Court has also been made aware of concerns as regards certain aspects of the operation of the performance management system and Career Framework.
The Court recommends that the proposals of the WRC should be amended to provide for
•Agreement in principle to the performance management system. That agreement will affect the performance management cycle in 2017 as regards the relationship between performance and pay. The parties should engage at the WRC over a period of eight weeks from the date of this recommendation to resolve any issues outstanding as regards the operational issues identified by the Union before the Court. Any unresolved issues should be referred to the Court for final recommendation.•Further engagement between the parties at the WRC in relation to operational aspects of career framework. That engagement should be cognisant of the understanding that no member of the Trade Union will be compelled to undertake any examinations or qualifications which are not a job specific requirement and / or specified by the regulator. That engagement at the WRC should be concluded within eight weeks of the date of this recommendation. Any unresolved issues at the end of that time should be referred to the Court for final recommendation.
•A base pay increase of 2.2% to apply with effect from 1stJanuary 2016. That payment should be implemented as soon as practicably possible taking account of the operation of payroll systems.
•A fund should to be created equivalent to 4% of the salary of all staff represented before the Court. That sum should be divided so as to provide a lump sum payment to all staff represented before the Court to be distributed in a manner which, with the assistance of the WRC if necessary, the parties can agree is appropriate and equitable. The payments to individuals should be made no later than end of October 2016. In the event that the parties fail to agree the distribution of this sum the Court will make a further recommendation on that issue based on submissions of the parties made following engagement including with the assistance of the WRC.
•Clarity that, without prejudice to the outcome of engagements, the Union will be free to claim a ‘cost of living’ increase in ‘salary pot’ negotiations to be held annually. In the event that the parties in any year agree that an element of the ‘salary pot’ will be reflective of ‘cost of living’ the application of any portion of that that element to staff who are at the top of their incremental scale and above the Pay range earnings cap will, without prejudice, be negotiated by the parties.
The Court was made aware at its hearing of a pay claim made by the Union in the period following completion of the WRC process and before the convening of a hearing by the Court. The Court notes the comments of the parties at its hearing in relation to this claim and puts forward its recommendation as a means of comprehensively addressing pay at this time and of addressing the issue of pay determination into the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
12 September 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.