FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AVERY WEIGH-TRONIX - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28 February 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18 April 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union are seeking a 3% pay increase for 2016.
2. The Union submit that UK and Northern Ireland colleagues have received pay increases in 2015 and 2016.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has offered to apply a pay increase of 2% from 1stDecember 2016.
2. The Company are committed to growing the Irish business and in order to make it profitable have identified a number of efficiencies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that the Company has offered to apply a pay increase of 2% in response to the within claim with effect from 1stDecember 2016. The Company, in its offer, clarifies that this offer is entirely separate from any 2017 pay review process. In addition the Company identified certain matters which would have to be accepted in order for the increase to be applied.
The Court was advised at its hearing that the Trade Union does not object to the use of Cognito tools in order to work in real time, or to attendance at training sessions in respect of this tooling as required. The Trade Union did however identify that certain clients would not allow Cognito equipment to be carried on site and also identified technical faults as being an issue with the use of this technology. The Court therefore recommends that the Company should acknowledge that the Cognito tool has to be used in conformity with client requirements where these arise and are specified by the client. Similarly the Court recommends that the company should engage with technicians on an ongoing basis to identify and resolve technical issues as they arise with the Cognito equipment. On that basis the Court recommends the acceptance of the Company proposal at point 1 of its document of 24thJanuary 2017.
The Court notes that the Company has put forward a proposal to allow for the operation of a core working day from 8.30am to 4.45pm. The company, at the hearing, clarified that the objective of this proposal is to ensure that client sites are operational at the point in the morning when technicians report and furthermore that the company provides better coverage to clients in the afternoon. The Court recommends that the Trade Union should accept that it is appropriate that working arrangements reflect the requirement to attend at client sites when they are open and operational and that these arrangements should be designed in such a way as to optimise cover in the afternoon. The Court recommends that, in acceptance of these operational parameters, the parties should immediately engage to develop appropriate attendance arrangements designed to be appropriately flexible and operationally effective. These arrangements should be finalised so as to be implemented by 1stJune 2017.
The Court notes that the Company seeks to maximise operational effectiveness through the provision of vehicles to technicians which are appropriate to the efficient discharge of the work which they are required to perform. The Court notes that the Company proposes to engage in talks with each individual technician on expiry of current leases, and that individual agreement will be sought prior to any re-ordering or renewing of company vehicles. The Court recommends that this proposal should be accepted as a reasonable means of advancing this matter.
The Court notes the Trade Union assertion that technicians do provide flexible and reasonable overtime coverage as and when required by the business. The Court therefore recommends the acceptance of the Company proposal at point 4 of its document of 24thJanuary 2017.
Taking all of the above into account and all of the circumstances applying in this matter, the Court recommends the application of a pay increase of 2.25% with effect from 1stApril 2016 in resolution of the issue of pay in the company in 2016. This Recommendation should be regarded as being entirely separate from any 2017 pay review process
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
LS______________________
20 April 2017Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.