FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SDO & MJV WASTE WATER TREATMENT WORKS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay Claim.
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 the 4th July 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 9th August 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- The Company had always agreed that any new pay agreement would be backdated to the expiry date of the last agreement.
- No pay consideration has been given to the productivity savings the Company will gain from the introduction of the new roster.
- The proposed new shift plan is not satisfactory to the Union due to concerns regarding rest periods, working alone at night, an increase in the number of weekends required and the loss of a block of 18 days off.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- 2.5% increase in pay from 1/6/2018
- 2.5% increase in pay from 1/6/2019
- 2.5% increase in pay from 1/6/2020
3. Any security concerns raised by the Union have been independently assessed and a report on the results has been provided to the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for a pay increase of 10% over three years, commencing on 1stJuly 2017, the expiry of the previous pay agreement. The Company outlined its necessity to reorganise its work practices in order to meet the terms of its contract with its client. In exchange for its proposed work practice changes the Company offered to pay the following increases: -
- 2½% from 1stJune 2018
2½% from 1stJune 2019
2½% from 1stJune 2020
It further offered to pay 2½% or €1,000 whichever is the greater in recognition of the 2017 – 2018 period.
Through the auspices of the WRC, the Court notes that considerable progress was made on the issues now before the Court. While the proposals which emerged were recommended for acceptance by both parties (as set out in the WRC's letter of 14th May 2018) they were subsequently rejected by the Union. The Union contended that the proposed changes will have a significant impact on the workers concerned.
In reaching its conclusion on this matter, the Court has taken account of the Company’s business needs and its argument that the volume of work does not require the same number of workers as heretofore. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that a cogent case has been made out for the proposed work changes, to include a shift roster operated by six Operatives on shift and one Operative on normal day working. However, the Court accepts that the proposed changes could not be considered as “normal ongoing” change. The Court notes the unusual nature of the proposed shift roster; however, it presents both advantages and disadvantages for the workers involved. The Company informed the Court that it was open to constructive feedback on the roster and was willing to address the Union’s concerns and make changes where possible. Accordingly, the Court is of the view that further work should be carried out on the shift roster in consultation with the Union in an effort to address the concerns raised.
In conclusion, the Court has taken account of the submissions of the parties and has concluded that a further modification of the WRC's proposals is warranted so as to bring finality to the issues outstanding. Accordingly, the Court recommends as follows: -
Shift Pattern
- The proposed shift pattern should be accepted unless an alternative roster is agreed in consultation with the Union by the first week in November 2018. Any revised shift roster must comply with statutory rest requirements.
On-Call Arrangements
- On-call will be voluntary, however, participation by a majority of staff is expected.
Pay
- In recognition of the impact the proposed changes will have, the employer will pay an additional once-off lump sum payment of €1,000.
[for the avoidance of any doubt this additional lump sum payment of €1,000 is in addition to the pay outlined in the WRC’s letter]
With these modifications in mind, the Court is of the view the proposals represent a fair and reasonable approach to the issues in dispute.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the proposals as so modified, be accepted by both parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
JD______________________
21 August 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.