LCR23028

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Retrospection of new salary bands

BACKGROUND:

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 09 May 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 04 July 2024.

RECOMMENDATION:

This matter before the Court concerns the implementation date for new salary bands following the re-evaluation of the role undertaken by 20 Asset Management Baggage Hall Sortation (BHS) operatives based in Dublin Airport.

Agreement was reached in November 2021 on a ”New Way of Working” agreement. BHS operatives started working in the new role in November 2021 on the basis that a process would commence to re-evaluate their role. Agreement was subsequently reached on a job specification and new salary bands attached to the role. SIPTU, on behalf of its members, seeks that the salary bands be back dated to November 2021, whereas the DAA states that the uplift applies from January 2024.

Union

The operatives adopted and commenced performing the new role in November 2021, in good faith, with an expectation that the remuneration process would commence in April 2022. A job description for the new role was agreed in May 2022, however, a proposal on remuneration was not received until December 2022. That proposal was rejected in January 2023 and SIPTU contended that the DAA did not fully involve staff or union officials in the Reward process.

A subsequent proposal, where the maximum of the scale increased to €48,321.46, was also rejected as it fell short of expectation. SIPTU subsequently advised in July 2023 that the job specification and salary scale proposal were acceptable but sought retrospection to the commencement date of the role.

The union submits that the DAA have availed of the new role and efficiencies since November 2021. It seeks a fair retrospection of the agreed pay scales and are willing to compromise on the timeline so that retrospection is applied from 1 January 2023.

Company

Union officials and local representatives were involved in the drafting of all proposal documentation and agreeing the timelines involved. At all times they understood that the agreed process was future focussed, and that the application date for any proposed agreement would apply in the January post agreement. There was no agreement to retrospectively apply any increases to November 2021.

The process was aligned with identical processes in other areas represented by SIPTU, where pay agreements reached in 2023 had an effective date of increase of January 2024. Any consideration of retrospection would undermine agreed processes in place between the company and SIPTU and potentially set a precedent for a party to seek that any future agreed position is backdated to the start of engagement, rather than the date of the agreement itself.

Recommendation

The Court notes that the matter before it has been the subject of extensive and constructive engagement between the parties, with agreement reached on the introduction of new roles and an associated pay band. The sole matter before the Court relates to the issue of retrospection.

The Court notes that the overall process to reach agreement took longer than expected. While the union contends that its members were not fully involved in certain aspects of the Reward process, the DAA contends that union representatives were fully engaged at all times and did not raise issues when information was shared.

The Court heard that the agreed process were followed and that the historical approach in respect of uplifted pay bands is through the annual pay progression process which is implemented annually in January. The DAA contends that they have no latitude to change this process as it would have wider implications than just the BHS operatives.

The Court notes that the matter of retrospection was formally raised by the union in correspondence between the parties in July 2023, which was well into the engagement process. For its part, the Union advise that they were willing to revise their claim for retrospection to apply from January 2023 rather than November 2021.

It is accepted that two other areas represented by SIPTU were engaged a similar process for the evaluation of roles to determine if alignment is needed on the pay scales, and agreements concluded with those cohorts which provided for pay uplifts to be implemented as part of the annual pay progression process.

The Court’s role in disputes of this nature to provide its opinion in the form of a Recommendation where parties are in dispute and have been unable to find agreement. It appears to the Court that concession of the union’s claim for retrospection has wider implications in terms of potential consequences for the terms of agreements concluded by the same union in the other two areas.

The Court has carefully considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties on the day of the hearing, however, having regard to all of the circumstances of this matter, it cannot recommend concession of the union’s claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Katie Connolly
ÁM	______________________
12 August 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.