FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROADSTONE WOOD LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Cost competitiveness programme.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case arises from an earlier Labour Court hearing (CD/11/756). The issue in dispute concerned the non-payment of bonus entitlements due to the workers for 2011 and a need on the part of the Company to make €2m in payroll savings in the coming year. The Court issued its Recommendation to the parties on the 20th December, 2011 and recommended that the bonus be paid to the workers. The Court further recommended that the Unions engage with management's on its proposals in relation to the required savings. If no agreement was reached by 25th January, 2012 the Court would hear the parties on the unresolved issues.
The issues in dispute were the subject of a further conciliation conference between the parties and agreement was not reached. The matter was referred to the Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A reconvened Labour Court hearing took place on 30th January 2012. The following is the Court's Recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the progress made to date between the parties in their efforts to protect employment and adjust wage costs in line with the severe decline that has occurred in the sector. The Court also notes the need to maintain high levels of trust between the parties to enable them to agree measures to protect employment and incomes over the next trading period. It is in this context that the Court makes the following Recommendation.
Attendance Bonus Scheme
The value of the attendance bonus has been substantially reduced as part of the wage adjustment process. The Unions sought to have the qualification terms for payment of the reduced bonus eliminated completely. Management rejected this proposal. They submitted, however, that where a worker's levels of absenteeism exceeds the agreed parameters of the scheme the percentage nature of the consequent reduction in the bonus payment automatically compensates for the reduced value of the bonus. Management submitted that one was offset by the other and the overall proportionality of the reductions is maintained.
The Court takes the view that Management's proposal takes into account the reduced value of the bonus payments that arise under the scheme and reduces the absolute level of the reductions that result from excessive levels of absenteeism in line with the reduced absolute value of the bonus.
The Court, however, also notes that the incentive value of the scheme has been considerably reduced. Accordingly, the parties may wish to engage with each other at a future date with a view to agreeing changes that may restore the attendance incentive originally envisaged in the scheme.
However, unless and until such agreement is reached the Court recommends that the Union accept management's proposal as fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.
Tool Money
The Court notes the apparent conflict between the wording of the Comprehensive Agreement and the restructuring proposals under discussion between the parties. The Court also notes the joint commitment to securing savings of €2 million from the pay bill in a fair and equitable way. Finally, the Court notes management's commitment to replenish the tool bank of the relevant categories of workers so as to ensure that they all have access to the full range of tools necessary to perform their duties in a productive and efficient manner.
The Court, therefore, recommends that management and Unions engage with a view to addressing any issues that arise in this context.
On this basis the Court recommends that the proposed reduction in the Tool Money element of the bonus scheme proceed as proposed by management.
Change in timing of payment of the Bonus Scheme
The problem arose in the context of the tight time frame within which the annual bonus is paid and the deadline for exercising an option under the revenue approved share purchase scheme expires. The Unions contended that a bonus payment date in July would ease these time pressures considerably. Management noted that the scheme has been in place for over 15 years and has worked without difficulty over that time; this year being the single exception to that rule. Management further submitted that the share purchase scheme was operated at group level and that any changes to the schemes would require wide consultations within the group.
The Court recommends that the current arrangements remain in place for 2012. The Court further recommends that the parties engage over the next 12 months to determine what changes if any could or should be made to the timing or structure of the current bonus scheme.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
28th February, 2012.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.