FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES GROUP LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Claimed unilateral changes to morning overtime, Saturday working and rounding of Saturday clock-off time.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members employed at the currency services division of AIB Group Bank transferred to Noonan Services Group Limited under a transfer of undertakings arrangement in 2014. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that a number of changes to work practices which have taken place in the last eighteen months have resulted in a loss of earnings for the affected staff. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that these changes were negotiated out over the period 2013/2015 and that the Company is entitled to implement the changes.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two 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 30th May , 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd October, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union argues that the Company has unilaterally changed these long standing work practices and that there has been a constant chipping away at their terms and conditions.
2. The Union contends that its members are now required to commence at a later start time and that the earlier start time was a term and condition enjoyed by the workers both prior to and post-outsourcing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company argues that all of the changes were negotiated over the period 2013/2015 and that it is entitled to implement the changes.
2. The Company further asserts that it is essential that this agreement is honoured and that it is obliged to run the business in the most effective and economic manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues in dispute refer to a number of changes implemented by the Respondent following the transfer of the workers concerned (and others not affected by this claim) from AIB Bank Group to the Respondent, Noonan Services Group Limited. The three issues which are the subject of this hearing are as follows:
1) Early start;2) Saturday working; and
3) Finishing time.
Union’s Position
The Union on behalf of the Workers affected claimed that the Employer had made unilateral changes to existing practises without any engagement and or agreement. The implementation of the changes had resulted in a loss of earnings for the staff concerned and the Union was seeking compensation for that loss.
Employer’s Position
The Representative for the Employer claimed that item one “early start” had been bought out as part of a collective agreement with the Union in November 2014. In relation to the other two issues they accepted that no discussion nor engagement had taken place but it was their position that they needed to streamline the practices to be in line with the practices in the rest of the organisation.
Discussion
In relation to the early start the Employer acknowledged that this practice continued for approximately six months after the buyout but that this had been an error on their part. They confirmed it was not their intention to seek a refund of the money paid in error. They clarified that they did not require the staff concerned to commence work prior to 7.00am. In an Appendix to their submission they set out the agreement they were relying on.
The Union acknowledged the agreement but argued it did not specifically mention the “early start” and the fact that it continued to be paid supported their argument that it had not been bought out. However, they accepted that the remaining 5.5 hours of regular rostered overtime referenced in the agreement did not include the early start time.
In relation to the other two issues which the Employer accepted were not covered by the collective agreement it emerged that Saturday working and the related issue of finishing time only occurred a couple of times a year and tended to be at the discretion of the Client Company that the Respondent provides its services to.
Recommendation
The Court, having considered the detailed submissions of both parties and the oral submissions made at the hearing, finds that the collective agreement of November 2014 bought out all weekday overtime except for the 5.5 hours' regular rostered overtime mentioned in the agreement which the Union accepts did not include “early starts”.
The Court notes the Employer’s acknowledgement that no discussion nor engagement took place in relation to the other two issues and therefore the Court recommends that a lump sum of €500 euro be paid to each of the Workers covered by this claim in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
1st November, 2017______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.