FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA M�NA - AND - CRAFT GROUP OF UNIONS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Non-implementation of terms of Team Working Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Craft Group of Unions and Management of Bord Na M�na in regard to the non-payment of an amount due under the second phase of the Energy Craft Teamwork Agreement concluded between the Craft Group of Unions and the Company in 2006 in respect of the Craft Teamworking Groups. Phase 1 was paid on acceptance of the Agreement in October 2006 and Phase 2 was due for payment 12-18 months later subject to a targeted reduction in craft numbers and the restructuring of the maintenance service as set out in the Agreement.
The Company claims that the conditions for making the second phase payment have not been met and that changes are required before it can consider payment. The Unions consider that the payment is due as all the requirements are duly met. The payment is in the nature of an operational allowance to compensate for all hours worked outside of normal basic hours.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th March, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th February, 2011.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Members have cooperated fully with the reorganisation and have delivered substantial productivity improvements as per the 2006 Agreement.
2. The Company continues to fully supply the various peat-fired power stations with the required quantities of peat. This could not be done without the cooperation that is inherent in the team-based system given the reduced number of Craft Workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Having reviewed the operation of the Agreement management have found that the targeted reductionin craft numbers has not been achieved and the required level of service was not provided.
2. In order to reach targets apprentices had to be retained and overtime had to be paid to Employees not in team-based systems.
3. The 2006 Agreement was very clear that the Phase 2 payment was conditional upon full cooperation and flexibility by all team members.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Energy Craft Teamwork Agreement agreed between the Company and the Craft Group of Unions in 2000 and reviewed in 2006. The reviewed Agreement provided for a number of changes in return for a two-phased increase in pay rates for the craftsmen involved. The first phase was paid out on acceptance of the Agreement and phase two was due 12 – 18 months after the system was in operation subject to the attainment of certain targets surrounding a reduction in the number of craftsmen employed and the restructuring of the maintenance service on a regional basis including self-management of working hours by the craftsmen. The Unions sought payment of phase two in October 2008, however, the Company decided that the targets had not been achieved and refused to agree the phase two payments.
Since the claim was referred to the Court the Company outlined the difficulties it is experiencing due mostly to change in government policy on power supply, competition and increased costs. Accordingly, the Company submitted to the Court that it would be inappropriate in the current climate to recommend any cost increases.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes the significant challenges which the Company is now facing which are very different to those which prevailed at the time when the review of the Agreement took place in 2006.
The Court notes that while the Agreement produced benefits for both sides, it did not achieve the required targets, mostly due to the fact that the required minimum level of overtime was not achieved by the self-structured mechanism. The 2000 Agreement has stipulated that the minimum level of overtime cover to be provided by the craftsmen was 85 hours per annum. It was decided as part of the review in 2006 that this level of overtime cover was to be achieved on a goodwill basis rather than on a mandatory basis. However, this level of cover has not been provided giving rise to many of the difficulties in reaching the required targets. The Court notes that both sides have concerns about the workability of the Agreement at this point.
The Court recommends that both sides should agree to achieve the minimum required overtime hours target within a period of 3 months on a self-structured basis and to be maintained thereafter. The Company should provide the required training and the Unions should commit to provide the required level of overtime cover. If after the period of three months the minimum required overtime has not been achieved the Court recommends that the Unions must accept that the Company has the right to impose overtime hours on a scheduled basis.
If the required cover has been achieved at the expiry of the 3 months the Court recommends that the rates should be increased by €1,000 and if further achieved and maintained along with the level of productivity required then the balance should be paid six months later.
Within this period of three months all other matters of concern regarding the full implementation of the Agreement, including the achievements of targets, should be discussed, with the assistance of a Facilitator nominated by the Court, with a view to reaching agreement on all matters by the end of this period.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
25th February, 2011______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.