Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89737 Case Number: LCR12698 Section / Act: S67 Parties: WYETH (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - M.S.F |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 35 laboratory workers concerning the 28th Pay Round.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the fact that increases over and above those
provided in the P.N.R. were granted in return for significant and
fundamental changes in work practices, none of which are presently
required from the laboratory staff involved, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Collins Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89737 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12698
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: WYETH (IRELAND) LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
M.S.F
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 35 laboratory workers
concerning the 28th Pay Round.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 28th Pay Round is due to the laboratory workers from
October, 1988. The Company has offered the terms of the Programme
for National Recovery (P.N.R.) but these were rejected on the
grounds that other groups in the Company have received increases
above these terms (P.N.R. + 2%). The Company says that the extra
increases given to other groups resulted from fundamental changes
in their conditions of employment. As similar concessions are not
being sought of the laboratory workers the Company says it cannot
apply the extra increase. As agreement could not be reached at
local level, the issue was referred to the conciliation service of
the Labour court on 18th September, 1989. No agreement was
reached at a conciliation conference held on 13th October, 1989,
and the matter was referred on 22nd October, 1989, to the Labour
Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 12th December, 1989, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The laboratory workers feel very aggrieved that the
Company refuses to treat them in the same manner as other
groups of employees. The workers concerned are being
discriminated against, resulting in a serious erosion of their
salaries because of the goodwill, co-operation and flexibility
they have given to the Company without compensation, in the
past. They are being penalised for their high level of
responsibility and the way they have met Company demands.
2. In 1988, the pay differential between the laboratory
workers and general operatives was 11%. This has now been
reduced to 9%. Given that previous wage agreements have
always provided that the Union could submit a further claim if
any other group secured more from the Company in terms of a
wage increase and taking into account that the differential
was originally arrived at because of the educational
requirements, training and level of responsibility which the
laboratory workers have in the Company, the position in which
they now find themselves cannot be justified. The Company
should concede to these workers the same increase given to
other groups.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim is for a straight application of terms
negotiated with other groups, regardless of the terms and
conditions associated with these agreements. This is not a
reasonable premise on which to base pay determination and is
at variance with the concepts of pay bargaining established in
recent years, particularly in the context of the P.N.R. The
concession of 2% to other groups was made in return for
significant and fundamental changes in their conditions of
employment. (Details supplied to the Court).
2. The basic pay of laboratory workers has not been
determined by reference to differentials. The workers
concerned enjoy salaried conditions, including an educational
allowance and generous sick pay arrangements. Claims for pay
increases based on maintenance of differentials are cost
increasing claims and as such are precluded under the P.N.R.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the fact that increases over and above those
provided in the P.N.R. were granted in return for significant and
fundamental changes in work practices, none of which are presently
required from the laboratory staff involved, the Court does not
recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________________
10th January, 1990 Deputy Chairman.
B.O'N./J.C.