FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BASF (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Move from weekly to monthly payroll.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a move from weekly to monthly payroll.
The Union said it agreed a Collective Agreement in 2013 for the phasing out of weekly pay via an interim payment agreement. The interim payment continued beyond 2013 if requested by a member.
The Employer said that it was envisaged at that time that there was a possibility that some employees may need more time on the interim transitionary arrangement; it was never the case nor could it be argued that these transitionary arrangements could continue indefinitely for all.
- 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 15 December 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5 May 2017.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The interim payment scheme was already in place for salaried staff and the unionised hourly paid staff migrated to that scheme because of the acceptance of the 2013 Collective Agreement.
2. Comprehensive Collective Agreements were negotiated and agreed by the Company and the Unions in 2015 and 2016 and the interim payment scheme remained in place.
3. The Unions membership have honoured the Collective Agreement in relation to the payment method and the interim payment method is the agreed pay system in the Company.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The move to monthly pay was linked to an Agreement concluded between the parties which saw all involved benefit with regard to access to the Employer Share Scheme.
2. The Workers who chose to maintain the interim transitionary arrangement could not have done so in the expectation that this arrangement would continue indefinitely.
3. At all times the Employer made it clear their intention in this regard was the phasing out of weekly pay and moving to monthly via a transitionary payment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the move from weekly to monthly payroll.
Management stated that in 2013 an Agreement was reached to phase out weekly payroll, Clause 5 states the following:-
“Phasing out of weekly payroll
- The Company will commence the transition of employees from a weekly to a monthly payroll system. Employees will be facilitated via a transitionary weekly or mid monthly bank transfer if required. Should employees wish to continue with this interim payment beyond December 2013, they should advise the HR Manager on an individual basis.”
The 2013 Agreement was linked to the launch of the BASF Share Scheme, which required employees to have an end of month salary payment to benefit from the receipt of matching share(s) from the Company. The transitionary arrangements included in the Agreement involve payment on 1st, 7th, 14thand 21stof each month and variable overtime, handover, fixed overtime, bonus payments etc. are paid out on the 25thof each month.
The Unions sought the current payment system to remain in place. They contended that the interim payment method is now the agreed monthly pay system in the Company which has not been altered despite subsequent collective agreements in 2015 and 2016.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of all parties, the Court notes that the 2013 Agreement was a comprehensive agreement fundamental to the security of employment and future success of the Company, which both sides accept has served the parties well. There is fundamental disagreement between the parties on the meaning of one aspect of the Agreement, i.e. Clause 5.
Due to the difference of opinion on the meaning of Clause 5, the Court is of the view that both parties should re-engage on that single issue, i.e. Clause 5, with a view to resolving this dispute.
The Court recommends that the parties involved should meet without delay to engage in meaningful discussions on resolving this issue. In the event that there are matters outstanding following these discussions then the dispute may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
23 May, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.