INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
DUBLIN AIRPORT AUTHORITY (SHANNON SHARED SERVICES)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
1. Shared Services Performance Related Pay.
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of thirteen of its members employed in Shannon Shared Services in relation to changes made to the Employer's Performance Related Pay (PRP) system. The dispute relates specifically to the terms of the Employer's PRP system which historically has seen an annual payment of up to 10% of overall salary paid to the workers. The Union contends that the Employer has unilaterally introduced changes to the scheme which include deferral of the payment and changes in the method of payment calculations. The Employer asserts that there is a business requirement to alter the terms of the scheme in order to bring this group of workers in line with other employees in the Company.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 23rd December, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th February, 2015.
3. 1. The Union contends that the Employer has changed the terms of the PRP system without negotiation and agreement.
2. The Union asserts that the Employer in recent years has deferred the payment of the PRP and has altered the method of its calculation, to the detriment of employees.
3. The Union is seeking to retain its current PRP agreement, or alternatively is willing to accept compensation in return for its willingness to negotiate and agree on a new PRP system.
4. 1. The Employer contends that there is a business need to bring these employees in line with other employees within the Company.
2. It is Management's prerogative to introduce a new scheme or alter the terms of the existing scheme in order to ensure that its strategic objectives are achieved.
3. The Employer asserts that there is no financial loss to the Employees as a result of changes made to the scheme and there is no justification for the Union's claim for compensation.
The dispute before the Court concerns the application of the Company’s Performance Management System and the associated Performance Related Pay (PRP) System to a small cohort of employees. The Union is seeking to retain the system in its original format or to be compensated for participation in an updated version of the system. The Company wishes to have the Claimants accept the newly updated system which was put in place in 2013 and which applies to all other employees.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court concurs with the Company’s view that there should be one uniform Performance Management System (and associated PRP system) applicable to all employees, with clearly identified objectives/standards, based on both Company performance and personal performance.
The Union expressed concern that the Claimants might lose out as a result of their agreeing to the newly updated system. Consequently, it sought a compensatory payment in order to embrace the system. To address these concerns and in return for the Union’s agreement to the newly updated system, the Court recommends that effective from April 2015 being the PRP date for the year 2014, and for a period of three years in total the Company should guarantee for each of the Claimants whose performance is deemed to have reached an acceptable standard, a performance payment equivalent to the average payment paid in the previous three years. Where an assessment of performance results in a payment in excess of the average the higher amount should be paid.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th March 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.