FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AES (IRELAND) LIMITED TRADING AS AES WASTE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. AES Safe Driving/ Safety Bonus
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 8 January 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9 May 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the application of the Driver's Charter Scheme to apply as stated and agreed on ‘ a Site by Site basis’ on a collective basis which means that if any site reaches 60% of their claims ceiling, then the Company will call a meeting with all drivers, Helpers and Operatives at that location.
2. The Union is requesting that these meetings when required be meaningful to give each depot/site the opportunity to address issues with a view to securing the bonus payments for all members.
3. The Union is seeking the retrospective payment of the one4all voucher for all 14 of its members – Drivers €400 Helpers/Others €250.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The purpose of the Safe Driving/Safety Bonus Scheme is to recognise and reward safe employee performance.
2. This Safety Bonus Scheme is clearly an extension of the Driver Safety Bonus Scheme to cover non-drivers i.e operatives and helpers.
3. At no stage would the Company have agreed to remove the fundamental individual element and responsibilities from this Bonus Scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute between the parties relates to a Safe Driving/Safety Bonus initially introduced by the Employer for Drivers only and then extended as part of a wider agreement under the auspices of the WRC to cover other grades. The dispute centres around the application of the Bonus and whether there are individual criteria as well as depot criteria for achieving the Bonus. The Union’s position is that the WRC agreement only sets out depot criteria and on that basis a number of Workers who had their bonus for 2017/18 stopped should have received the Bonus. The Employer’s position is that they did not meet the individual criteria and therefore the Bonus was not paid. The Employer accepted that the criteria for receiving / not receiving the bonus were not written down anywhere. It is their position that Drivers were told by their line Managers what the criteria were but in relation to the other grades it was never stated.
It is not unusual that a Bonus Scheme of this nature might have both individual and depot criteria. However, what is unusual is that the criteria are not set out and available for all staff to familiarise themselves with. The Court, noting that there are clear depot criteria in relation to receiving the Bonus, recommends that the parties return to Conciliation to try and get the same clarity around the individual criteria for receiving the Bonus with a view to having those criteria apply for the 2019/2020 Bonus. In order to bring this matter to a conclusion the Court recommends that at the conclusion of the WRC process the Workers who are the subject of this claim be paid their 2017/18 bonus and if there are any issues relating to the 2018/12019 bonus that they should be finalised as part of the WRC process.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
MK______________________
27 May 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.