FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : APPLUS NATIONAL CAR TESTING SERVICE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay increase for Vehicle Inspectors, Administration and Call-Centre Workers.
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 12 September 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 8 November 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union contends that the Company is enjoying good performance and is highly profitable.
2. The Union says that there are a number of issues around the members' working day that affect the operating of the Bonus Scheme and the members say that these issues would need to be addressed and resolved in advance of any agreement around the Scheme. The Union recognises the importance for the Company of formal recognition of the Scheme but feels that it should not form part of this pay claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. It is the Company's assertion that both the Company and the workforce have attained the full benefit of the Incentive Scheme since 2012 and should now formally recognise the scheme.
2. The Project Agreement between the Government Authority and the Company only allows for inflationary increase factors above 2%. It is unlikely that the Company will be entitled to such increases within the next two years.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties is the quantum of the pay increase on offer and the linking of any such pay increase to a revision of the sick pay scheme and signing up to the Productivity Incentive Scheme. At the commencement of the hearing the employer informed the Court that they were withdrawing the sick pay issue. The Union claimed that the pay offer from the Employer was insufficient and did not address the period from July 2016, when claim was lodged, to April 2017. The Union had a difficulty with the requirement for staff to formally sign up to the Productivity Scheme being a part of any pay deal as it only affected approximately one third of the workforce.
The Union lodged its pay claim in July 2016 and feels that any pay proposal should be from that date. The Union drew the Court’s attention to various pay comparators in the motor industry but acknowledged that none of the comparators cited received the 5% annual increase that the Union were looking for. The Union did not dispute that a majority of the workforce had signed up to the Productivity Incentive Scheme and that 100% of the Workers covered by the Scheme were participating and benefiting from the Scheme since 2012. The Union acknowledged that the Scheme had been the subject of a previous Labour Court Recommendation which recommended that all staff should formally agree to co-operate with the Productivity Scheme. The Union identified a number of issues that staff were seeking clarification on in relation to the Scheme and gave the following examples, loss of a bonus for a two-week pay period if one day is missed through absence, issues in relation to visual retests and additions to the test, but cautioned that this list was not exhaustive.
The final concern expressed by the Union was that members not covered by the Scheme or who had already signed up to the Scheme felt that this issue should not be attached to the pay claim.
The Employer position is that as part of any pay agreement they are seeking to harmonise staff contracts. They believe that operationally it is important that they achieve this. For some staff this entails formally signing up to an agreement they are already working under and accepting benefits from since 2012 i.e. the Productivity Incentive Scheme. On a practical level, it does not involve any change to their current work practices. In relation to the issues raised by the staff relating to the Scheme, the Employer felt that a review of the Scheme would show that each of the three shifts had issues peculiar to itself but none adversely or disproportionately affect the bonus payment. The Employer offered to make available to the Union in the first quarter of each year statistics in relation to the operation of the Scheme in the previous year which they felt would address many of the concerns identified by the Workers. For staff currently on fixed-term contracts the Company are proposing on acceptance of the pay proposal to make those staff permanent as part of the harmonising of contracts process.
The Employer acknowledged that the current offer did not take account of the gap between July 2016 and April 2017 but they felt it was a very fair offer.
The Court having read the submissions and listened to the oral submissions on the day notes that the issue in relation to the Production Incentive Scheme is purely an administrative issue of formally signing up. There was no dispute that the workers in question have been operating the Scheme since 2012 and by their actions have acquiesced to the Scheme. The Court sees no practical obstacle to the formal signing up to the Scheme and therefore recommends that the remaining workers sign up to the Scheme. The Court believes that the issuing of relevant statistics relating to the operation of the Scheme should be done annually in the first quarter of each year in respect of the year before as a matter of form commencing in the first quarter of 2018 in respect of 2017.
In relation to the pay element the Court recommends as follows;
- July 2016 to March 2017-- voucher for €500 euro to be paid to the workers covered by this recommendation on acceptance of same;
1st April 2017 -- 2% to be applied as soon as practicable on acceptance of this Recommendation;
1st April 2018 -- 2%; and
1st April 2019 2.5%
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
23 November, 2017______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.