LCR22572

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

TRANSDEV IRELAND (LUAS)
(REPRESENTED BY STRATIS CONSULTING)

- AND -

APPROX 212 TRAM DRIVERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:
1. Pay Review


BACKGROUND:
2. This matter could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 20 December 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual courtroom on 25 March 2022 and a physical hearing in Lansdowne House on 6 April 2022.


UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union is seeking a pay increase of 3.5% per annum for five years commencing on 1 January 2021.

2. The Union maintains that these increases should not be linked to a 'mutual gains' framework.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer has proposed a pay increase at the top of the scale of 2.5% on the date of agreement and a further 2.5% on each of three years commencing on 1 January 2022.

2. The Employer side proposal is contingent on certain flexibilities being achieved based on a ‘mutual gains’ model which was agreed with the Trade Union.

RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court has been the subject of extensive engagement between the parties including with the assistance of the parties’ internal dispute resolution tribunal, the Workplace Relations Commission, facilitation by an external party and again with the Workplace Relations Commission.

The Court notes that progress which might have been made between the parties in those engagements on an agreed ‘mutual gains’ model forms no part of the position of the Trade Union before the Court.

The Trade Union claim before the Court involves a claim for a pay increase of 3.5% per annum for each of five years commencing on 1^st January 2021. The employer side position is based on the proposition that certain flexibilities would be agreed based on the earlier agreed ‘mutual gains’ model in return for a pay increase at the top of the scale of 2.5% on date of agreement and a further 2.5% on each of three years commencing on 1^st January 2022.

The parties have presented comprehensive written and oral submissions to the Court.

It is clear that, notwithstanding the very significant efforts of both sides, no consistent progress has been made and maintained between the parties prior to the referral of the matter to the Court.

In fact, it is the Court’s conclusion that, in some significant respects, the positions presented to the Court by the parties represent a dispute which has widened rather than narrowed on the path through the various procedures outlined above.

The Court’s obligation is to consider whether the issuing of a Recommendation in this trade dispute is appropriate and if so, to frame a recommendation based on the merits of the dispute as presented.

In the current matter the Court understands that the ambition of the Trade Union is to achieve a five year pay agreement outside of a ‘mutual gains’ framework. The Company’s ambition meanwhile is to achieve an agreement in a ‘mutual gains’ framework but which would not reach the level of pay increase sought by the Trade Union outside of the framework.

In the view of the Court the parties are not in a position to conclude a voluntary agreement which achieves the ambition of either party. However, the parties’ last pay agreement expired at the end of 2020 and the prognosis for factors relevant to the conclusion of a further pay agreement are uncertain as a result of external factors including the impacts of geo-political developments.

In all of the circumstances, the Court recommends that the parties accept that they are not in a position at this time to achieve an agreement of the nature sought by either party and that significant further pragmatic engagement will be required to advance towards such an agreement.

The parties should also recognise however the value of achieving an agreement at this time which responds constructively if not comprehensively to the Trade Union claim.

The Court, against that background, recommends that pay matters outstanding since 1^st January 2021 should now be resolved by applying an increase of 2.5% at all points of the scale with effect from 1^st January 2021 and a further 3.5% with effect from 1^st January 2022.

In the event that the Trade Union in the future submits a claim to address pay matters with effect from 1^st January 2023 it will be a matter for the Company to table any position based on ‘mutual gains’ in the process of responding to that claim should it decide to do so.

The Court so recommends

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.