FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : TIPPERARY CO-OP DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.Cost Review-Opting Process / Deferral Of Pay Award / On-Call Payment. 2. The Union seek compensation for a deferral of a pay increase. 3. That the Call-Out payment should remain as agreed. EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS: 4. 1. The Company propose one final ''managed opting process'' and that future operational vacancies should be filled through best practice interview procedures. 2.The Company states there will be no retrospective payment in relation to a deferred pay increase. 3.The Company contends that the 2 operators assigned to Call-Out for the Wastewater Treatment operation be paid as proposed by it RECOMMENDATION: A pause in the date for payment of an agreed pay increase A proposal to cease an ‘opt’ arrangement A proposal in relation to a call out payment. Pause in payment of pay increase The parties concluded a collective agreement in 2019 which, amongst other elements, provided for the application of a pay increase of 2% in February 2021. It is undisputed that the employer has encountered financial challenges in the period since the conclusion of the collective agreement. In light of the financial difficulties experienced, the employer proposed a pause in the payment of the agreed pay increase such that it would be paid in February 2022 rather than February 2021. The Trade Union position is that an acknowledgement of the effect of this pay pause has to be given and has proposed that a payment should be made to the membership. Proposed cessation of ‘opt’ arrangement An agreed ‘opt’ arrangement is in place in the employment whereby each individual has the right every two years, based on seniority, to opt to move from their job role to another job role. The employer contends that an arrangement whereby an employee, based solely on their length of service, can opt to move into any position and consequently creating a situation where a trained and competent operator can be displaced and the person opting in may require significant upskilling to meet the requirement of the role into which they have opted, is out-dated. The issue is all the more difficult according to the employer in the context of investment in the business over the last five years having created jobs that are primarily technical roles requiring intensive and highly skilled training and ongoing development of operators. The employer made particular reference to the period of time required for operators to be completely familiar with the evaporation and drying process and to the regulatory requirements of the newly installed Wastewater Treatment Plant. The employer submitted that unmanageable performance difficulties can arise from the opting process with high levels of product downgrade produced in a very short period together with high levels of unplanned downtime. The employer proposes that, following one final managed opting process, the ‘opt’ arrangement be replaced by a system whereby all positions are filled through an interview process. The Trade Union submitted that the agreed opting process is viewed by its membership as a fair and objective method of filling roles. It is a regulated and ordered system that is agreed with the employer and one which has operated without difficulty for many years. The Trade Union was prepared to consider the removal of some ‘critical’ roles from the opting process or to consider altering the current two-yearly frequency of the opting cycle. In addition, the Trade Unjoin was prepared to consider a final opting process with a ‘buy-out’ or compensation payment. The Court was unable to secure an understanding of the level of opting that commonly takes place during the two-yearly opting process. Call out payment The parties have engaged on arrangements for the two job roles involved in the new Waste Water Treatment Plant. Whereas a large measure of agreement has been reached, the parties are in dispute as regards the minimum payment which would arise if a person is ‘called out’. The Trade Union has submitted that, notwithstanding the fact that its members do not want to be on-call or answering calls when on rest periods, in the event that a worker is required to attend on a call out basis the following arrangement should apply: Monday to Friday : Minimum payment of 3 hours pay at time plus a half Weekends: Minimum payment of five hours at double time. The employer proposes that the following arrangement should apply in the event of call out occurring: Payment for clocked time Monday to Sunday: Payment for a minimum of one hour at double time Call outs to be authorised by management prior to attending the site. The Court understands the level of call out involved to be less than twenty events per annum and most likely significantly less than twenty events. The Court understands that call outs commonly last less than one hour in duration and commonly significantly less than one hour. Recommendation of the Court. The Court has considered carefully the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court has also considered the shared understanding of the financial difficulties faced by the employer over the recent period. Pause in application of pay increase The Court recommends that the employer should, as contended for by the Trade Union, acknowledge the co-operation of the membership in this matter. The Court therefore recommends that the employer should provide a payment to the value of €250 to each member in the final quarter of both 2022 and 2023. Opting process The Court is not familiar with an arrangement of the nature of the opting process in place in the employment and concludes that it is likely to be unique in its form. The proposition that the process carries real operational costs and inefficiencies does not seem unreasonable to the Court. However, the arrangement, however unique, is one which has been in place in this employment for a considerable period of time and is one which is valued by the membership of the Trade Union. The Court recommends that both parties should accept that it is not unreasonable for the employer to actively manage selection for roles in the employment and that a failure to ensure that appointees to roles are suitable for those roles can have a negative effect on performance and efficiency. Against that background the parties should agree to review the opting process over a period of six months to establish its effect on the operation and efficiency of the business including as regards the importance of achieving a sustained value from training and development delivered to operators in particular roles. That review process should also examine the degree to which certain roles should be excluded from any opting arrangements which might apply into the future. In the event of a failure to find agreement during the review period, the parties should agree to avail of agreed dispute resolution procedures, including a referral to the Workplace Relations Commission and the Court as necessary. Minimum call out payment The Court notes the level of constructive engagement which has taken place in relation to the job roles associated with the new Waste Water Treatment Plant. The Court notes also the expected frequency and duration of call outs. In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the following minimum call out payment structure should apply: Monday to Friday – minimum payment of two hours at time plus one half Weekends – minimum payment of 2.5 hours at double time. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
