LCR21585

• 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 12 May 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

The Company operates motorway toll plazas in Fermoy and Limerick. The claim is brought by the Union on behalf of three maintenance technicians (‘the Workers’) and has been the subject of ongoing discussions between the Parties since 2012 including with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission and subsequently with the Workplace Relations Commission. The Company has made two comprehensive proposals to the Union in order to settle the dispute: the first was made in January 2014 and the second in September 2016 (‘the 2016 Proposal’). Both proposals – having each been recommenced for acceptance by the Union - were balloted on and rejected by the Workers concerned. Nevertheless, the Company has clearly stated in its submission to the Court that it stands over its 2016 Proposal.

There are four elements to the claim:

(i) Enhanced on-call allowance.The Workers are currently paid €100.00 per month by way of an allowance for being on-call after normal working hours for alternate two-week periods. This payment is made regardless of whether the Worker concerned is required to attend on site or not during any period he is on-call.

The Union is seeking an on-call allowance equivalent to 16 hours’ basic pay per week on-call. The Union submits that its members are regularly required to log on from home during on-call periods to re-set equipment and to liaise with the Company’s IT service providers.

The Company, in its 2016 Proposal, offered an allowance equivalent to 8 hours’ basic pay per week on call, to include payment for up to 6 remote login hours per month.

(ii) Increase in call-out payments.The Company currently pays the Workers €45.00 per call-out, regardless of its duration. The Union submits that the industry norm payment between 3 and 4 hours at the appropriate overtime rate. The Union, therefore, is seeking a minimum payment of 4 hours at double time with additional hours thereafter to be paid at the appropriate rate.

In its 2016 Proposal, the Company offered to increase the call-out payment as follows: 3 hours at the basic rate of pay per call-out (to cover the first three hours on site) with an overtime rate of 1.5 times the current basic rate to apply thereafter.

(iii) Historic Hours.This element of the claim relates to the time spent to date by the Workers to date resolving technical issues remotely from home during on-call periods. The Union has prepared a schedule of the hours claimed for each of the three Workers.

The Company does not accept that it has any contractual obligation to the Workers in respect of this element of the claim. It submits that the vast majority of the remote log-ins are of very short duration and that the Union has inflated this aspect of the claim. Nevertheless, the Company offered, as part of the 2016 Proposal, to make a once-off payment of €5,000.00 per Worker plus 15% of the historic hours, as adjusted, as time-off-in-lieu.

(iv) Pay Harmonisation.Two of the three Workers are in receipt of the same rate of pay. The third worker – who was employed prior to his two colleagues – earns a higher basic rate of pay such that his monthly gross pay is €548.27 higher than that of his colleagues. The Union submits that each of the three Workers perform the same work and are interchangeable and, therefore, should be paid the same rate for the job. They are also seeking retrospection of this element of the claim to the respective commencement dates of each of the two Workers on the lower rate.

The Company submits that the highest paid of the three Workers is employed under a different contract of employment and in a different role than that of his colleagues: he is employed as a Toll System Maintenance Specialist on a 40-hour per week contract; the others are employed as Maintenance Technicians on 37.5 hour week contracts. While the Company is willing to issue amended contracts of employment to reflect operation changes, it is not willing to harmonise the respective contracts by way of increasing pay.

Recommendation

Having considered the detailed written and oral submissions made by the Parties in respect each of the four elements of the within claim, the Court recommends that the Union should accept the Company’s 2016 proposal.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Alan Haugh
CR______________________
5th October, 2017Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.