FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VIRGIN MEDIA (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - UNITE THE UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. A new pay determination model for 2018 onwards.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a proposal by the Employer to replace the existing pay negotiations process with a new pay determination model for 2018 onwards.
- The Union said that it is vehemently opposed to both Performance Related Pay (PRP) and the Willis Towers Watson benchmarking median being introduced.
The Employer said that in line with the Procedural Agreement the Company is now seeking to effect greater competitiveness and to incentivise its staff by applying performance related pay increases rather than the historical application of a flat percentage increase across all unionised grades.
- 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 21 December 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8 February 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union are seeking a percentage pay increase as has been the practice in previous years.
2. The Company are in a position to pay straight forward pay increases, as they have been doing for a number of years.
3. The rationale, as outlined by management, for bringing in Performance Management is already in place and has been for a number of years and there has been no need for PRP.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is owned by Virgin Media UK, whose parent is US multinational Liberty Global, and there is an expectation that the Irish operation align with the pay practices of the group.
2. Performance Related Pay is being introduced to modernise the Company’s approach to pay, incentivise staff and properly link individual performance to pay.
3. The Company’s proposal to move to PRP in 2018 is realistic, reasonable and pragmatic, working to maintain the company as a sustainable entity, while at the same time incentivising employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute concerns a proposal by the Employer to replace the existing pay negotiations process with a new pay determination model for 2018 onwards.
The Employer is proposing a Performance Related Pay (PRP) model linked to the benchmark median in the “Towers Watson Hi-Tech Survey”. It is the Employer’s position that their parent company requires them to move to this model but also that it makes good market sense. They contend that Performance Related Pay is the norm in the telecommunications sector. The company has operated a performance appraisal system for some time but are now looking to link that to pay. In the interest of progressing the issue the Employer is prepared to park the “Towers Watson” element of the proposal in the initial phase.
The Unions position is that their members are vehemently opposed to both Performance Related Pay and the “Tower Watson system” being introduced. Their preference is to continue with the existing model of straight forward percentage increases. In their submission to the Court the Union identify a number of concerns that they have with the proposals. They outlined how they had sought clarifications in relation to the PRP and how it would work in practise but that the second conciliation hearing under the auspices of the WRC had been cut short as they were not in a position to commit to reaching agreement on that day.
The Court having carefully read the submissions of both parties and listened to the oral submissions on the day recommends that the parties re-engage under the auspices of the WRC on the Performance Related Pay model and that all information in relation to same be shared with the Unions. The Court notes the Employers position that the “Tower Watson” element will not form part of the initial phase. Engagement on the PRP model to commence immediately and conclude no later than the end of March. If at that stage, there are any issues relating to the PRP model that remain unresolved those issues can be referred back to the Court for a recommendation.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CR______________________
23 February, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.