INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
IRISH MUNICIPAL, PUBLIC AND CIVIL TRADE UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Hearing arising from LCR18415.
2. Coillte Teoranta is a commercial State Company employing in excess of 1100 people across the group. On 28th November 2000 a Company /Union agreement on the introduction of Performance Management and an associated Performance Related Pay (PRP) Scheme was signed.
In November 2005 a dispute regarding the payment of bonus for 2004 was referred to the Labour Court for hearing. This resulted in the issuing of Recommendation No. 18415 which recommended that the Union’s claim be conceded. The parties then entered into discussions on the implementation of the Court’s recommendation.
A number of issues remain to be resolved. These concern the Team-Based Bonus Scheme and the Performance Pay Scheme for Level I staff.
In June 2006 the Union requested the assistance of the Labour Court in dealing with the issues in dispute and requested a further hearing to deal with the matters arising from LCR No. 18415. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th August, 2006.
Team Based Bonus Scheme:-
3. 1.The Union contend that in accordance with the agreement the total pool available for pay-out in respect of Team/Business Unit level PRP will be equal to 2% of the total salary for the group.
4. 1.It is the Company's contention that the total PRP pay-out does not exceed the overall ceiling of 2% pool.
Performance Pay Scheme for Level 1 Staff:-
5. 1.The performance management and reward scheme should apply equally both to those Level 1 Managers on the standard grade and those on individual employment contracts.
2. There is a serious inequity in giving access to a bonus scheme to those who signed a revised contract, which was represented as being substantially no different to their existing contract, and excluding those Managers with exactly the same responsibility from the same bonus because they had not signed a personal contract.
6. 1.The 2003 scheme was introduced specifically for Level 1 Managers who chose to accept ''personal contracts'' and to have their pay determination and their wider terms and conditions fundamentally changed.
2.It is unreasonable of the Union to seek to have the terms of a PRP Scheme introduced for those who opted for ''personal contracts'' applied to those remaining on the standard scale.
In the course of the hearing it emerged that the issues in dispute between the parties were:-
- The total amount which should be allocated to the Team/Business Unit level PRP for 2004 and 2005, and
- The Performance Pay Scheme for Level 1 Staff.
Having considered the submissions of the parties on these issues the Court recommends as follows: -
The PRP Fund.
The point at issue here concerns the interpretation of an agreement concluded between the parties in 2001. Having reviewed the terms in which the agreement is drafted the Court is satisfied that it requires the Company to allocate an amount equal to 2% of the total salary costs of the relevant group in respect of 2004 and 2005. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union position on this point be accepted.
Performance Pay Scheme for Level 1 Staff.
In dealing with a similar dispute, the Court stated in Recommendation LCR 18415 as follows:-
"The Court does not accept that any sound basis exists for restricting the bonus payments at issue to those who opted for personal contracts"
The underlying rationale for the Court's Recommendation in that case was that the group who did not opt for individual contracts should not be treated less favourably in respect of the bonus scheme than those who did opt for the new arrangements. The Court remains of that opinion.
The Court therefore recommends that for the relevant years the scheme for those associated with this claim should be adjusted, in respect of the point at issue, to that applicable to those who have opted for personal contracts.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
29th August, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.