FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BALFOUR BEATTY CLG (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SIPTU TEEU DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. 1. Pay Harmonisation, 2. Pay Rate (Site Agents), 3. General Pay Increase, 4. On Call Payment, 5. Pay Structure For Administrative Grades
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union and the Employer in relation to the Union's claim for pay harmonisation, a pay increase and various pay related issues. The Employer rejects the Union's position and agreement could not be reached. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number 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 3rd November, 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th November, 2016, 20th January, 2017 and on the 18th April, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions contend that there are approximately 16 different pay grades in the Company and within those grades the rates of pay for the same role have considerable variations.
2. The Unions maintain that 4 pay bands should be established to create some standardisation across the various roles and rates that operate in the Company.
3. The Unions contend that collectively bargained pay increases be applied going forward.
4. It is the Unions position that the "On-Call" payment should be €300 for all workers.
5. The Unions contend that the Employer is in a financial position to concede its pay claim.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer asserts that the issue of pay harmonisation relates only to "PE" grades.
2. The Employer says that the proposal for an increase of over 14% in four steps is the limit of what is affordable. It is also important that there is full cooperation with standard industry operational measures such as compliance with all GNI contract specific requirements.
3.The Employer maintainsthat they are not prepared to contemplate a collectively bargained rate or scale, preferring personal contracts and rates of pay due to varying expertise, level of responsibility and complexity of work projects.
4. It is the Company's position that the "On-Call" payment should be €250 for all workers.
5. The Employer maintains that they are in a poor financial position and currently losing €100k per week.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matters in dispute between the parties relate to the following :-
- •Pay Harmonisation
•Pay Rates for Site Agents
•General Pay Increase
•On Call Payment
•Pay Structure for Administrative Grades
Pay Harmonisation
At its first hearing of the case on 15thNovember 2016 the Court recommended that an agreed independent assessor should carry out an evaluation of the PE grades (including craft grades), with a view to harmonisation. An agreed assessor, Dr Martin King carried out the exercise and banded the grades into a Craft rate and four General Operative Bands, Band A,B,C,D. The proposed rates which emerged included an overall pay increase of 17% on the existing base line rates.
Both sides agreed on the methodology of Dr King’s report, however, there was no agreement on the proposed rates. The Unions accepted the report’s recommended rates. Whereas the Company outlined that due its difficult financial position it could not accept the full impact of the evaluation proposals which recommended increase of 17% and instead offered 14% phased over a four year period. It stated that no pay increases are affordable unless there is full cooperation with all industry working practices as outlined at Appendix 3 of its submission to the Court. This it maintained was essential to enable the Company to tender for specific GNI contracts. The Unions confirmed their acceptance of such cooperation.
The Court notes that the Gas Fitters rates of pay are common to all and therefore require no harmonisation.
The Court recommends that the 17% pay increase recommended by Dr King should be accepted and should be phased in over 36 months from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation.
Those above the recommended rate should be “red-circled”, therefore such workers will for a period of time until others catch up be earning higher rates of pay than others doing similar work. The Court is satisfied that such an arrangement is appropriate in the circumstances.
Pay Rates for Site Agents
As a result of the joint venture of the two companies in February 2012 it emerged that the pay rates of Site Agents ranged from €41,532 to €104,600 per annum. The Unions seek a common collectively agreed pay scale or pay range for all Site Agents. Whereas the Company seek to maintain Site Agents on individualised pay rates and has recently concluded negotiations on an individual basis with a number of the Site Agents.
The Court notes the respective positions of both parties and recommends that the parties should engage further on this issue.
General Pay Increase
The Unions seek a general pay increase of 7%. Other than the increases mentioned above in respect of the PE grades, the Company rejected the claim for a general pay increase due to its continuing unprofitable trading on GNI operations.
The Court recommends that the parties should meet to discuss the matter of a pay increase in January 2018 bearing in mind the financial position of the Company prevailing at the time.
On Call Payment
Currently PE staff who are required to be on call-out rota receive an on-call payment of either €250 or €300 depending on which company they were originally employed by. The Union sought a standard payment of €300. Whereas the Company sought to standardise the payment at €250.
The Court recommends that the rate should be standardised at €275 in full and final settlement of this issue.
Pay Structure for Administrative Grades
Both the Company and the Unions are in agreement on a collectively bargained pay structure to apply to Clerical staff, which will have an ‘Entry Level’ of €19,750 to €21,000 and a ‘Competent’ scale of €21,000 to €26,000. The Company propose to performance review system of advancing through the scale whereas the Unions seek progression to the ‘Competent’ level after 12 months and thereafter to move up the Competent scale over a two or three year period.
The Court recommends that staff should progress from the Entry Level to the Competent Level after 12 months and should progress on the Competent scale over a period of three years.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th May, 2017______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.