LCR22683

1.Introduction of New Category of Worker


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 15^thSeptember 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14^thNovember 2022.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

The Union members are opposed to any change to the current operational manual and to the introduction of a new category of worker, Inspection Support Personnel,’ ISP’. The members feel this change would undermine their position within the company, the integrity of the test and their job security. The union makes the following arguments:

1. There is a lack of appropriate qualifications for ISP.

2. The introduction of an ISP would not promote accountability and transparency.

3. The introduction of an ISP would have an impact on members’ terms and conditions of employment.

4. The impact on current operation of the introduction of an ISP has not been fully explored by the company.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

At the end of 2021, the Company commenced discussions in regard regarding the introduction of the ISP model, however, as no agreement could be reached, these were ultimately taken before the WRC for conciliation and eventually jointly referred to the Labour Court.

1. There is a lack of testing availability of NCT services which is not due to the COVID-19 pandemic but, rather, due to a lack of qualified mechanics throughout Europe.

2. The Company proposes to introduce a new category of worker (ISP) to alleviate these pressures.

3. The Company proposes to offer significant improvements in productivity bonus payments as compensation.

4. The introduction of the ISP model will result in improved road safety, a protection of the terms and security of employment of staff into the future and a better work-life balance.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court wants to record that both parties approached the Court hearing in a positive and constructive manner. In that spirit, the Court recommends that the parties enter into a trial of the Employer’s proposal across the five Dublin centres for a 12 month period.

To address the concerns of the Workers and to facilitate the trial proceeding, the Court recommends that the parties make a formal agreement within a matter of a short number of weeks from the date of this Recommendation, within which the Employer should give the following undertakings;

• 
  1. No Vehicle Inspector will be held personally responsible for any failings in Stage 1 or Stage 2 of the inspection process, when they have not undertaken inspections personally in those stages.

  2. Inspection Support Personnel will not be utilised for any aspect of Stage 3 and onwards in the inspection process, including On Board Diagnosis.

  3. Inspection Support Personnel will not exceed a figure of 10% of the inspection staff.

  4. The ratio in any centre will not exceed one Inspection Support Personnel to four Vehicle Inspectors.

To facilitate the trial period, the Court recommends that Inspection Support Personnel be engaged on fixed term contracts, at least initially.

At the end of the trial period, the Court recommends that a joint review be undertaken by the parties. This review should be completed within six weeks. The purpose of the review should be to identify any Union concerns highlighted by the trial period that could prevent this proposed approach being made more permanent.

If there are issues between the parties that cannot be resolved at that point, the Court recommends that the parties utilise the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Court recommends that the existing productivity bonus scheme, which predates the proposals to recruit Inspection Support Personnel, remain in place and that the parties enter into parallel discussions regarding plans to enhance and improve that scheme for the future.

The Court recommends that the Employer provide vouchers of €250 in value to each member of staff in the centres that participate in the pilot exercise.

The Court notes the difficulties being encountered by the Employer in recruiting suitably qualified mechanics and recommends that the Employer engage with SOLAS, in consultation with the Union, in order to determine if an acceptable solution can be found to this problem for the medium to long term.

The above recommendations are a ‘package’ and are designed to be acted upon as such. The Court notes that attempts by either party to pick and choose elements of the proposals will most likely lead to the credibility of the ‘package’ as a potential solution to the issue before the Court being called into question. Accordingly, the Court wishes it to be noted that these recommendations are intended to be treated and implemented together as a whole.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
NCL	______________________
17 November 2022	Deputy Chairman