Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92292 Case Number: LCR13701 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LAKELAND DAIRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for:- (1) Payment of 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). (2) Payment of retrospection to a laboratory technician. (3) Productivity payments in respect of 2 laboratory assistants.
Recommendation:
12. Having considered the 3 claims before it the Court recommends
as follows:
(1) 3% P.E.S.P.
The Court considers that in the circumstances the parties
should enter immediately into negotiations on a reasonable
quid pro quo which would allow for payment of the 3%. The
Court will be available to assist the parties if they fail to
reach agreement.
(2) Laboratory Technician
The Court recommends that he be paid the new rate
retrospective to the 1st January, 1991.
(3) Laboratory Assistants
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92292 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13701
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: LAKELAND DAIRIES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH CO-OPERATIVES
ORGANISATION SOCIETY LIMITED)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for:-
(1) Payment of 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
(2) Payment of retrospection to a laboratory technician.
(3) Productivity payments in respect of 2 laboratory
assistants.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Society was formed in 1990 through the amalgamation of
Killeshandra and Lough Egish Co-Operative Societies. The claims
were made by the Union in late 1991 but no agreement was reached
at local negotiations. The claims were referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on 5th December, 1991. A conciliation
conference was held on 15th April, 1992 at which no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 20th
May, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cavan
on 24th June, 1992.
Claim (1) Payment of 3% increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
BACKGROUND:
3. The phase 2 increase due under P.E.S.P. was implemented by the
Society with effect from 1st December, 1991. The Union claims
that Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P., which provides for an increase in
rates of pay of up to 3% in local bargaining, should be
implemented also from December, 1991. The Society rejects the
claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society is the only one in the North Eastern Region
who has refused to concede the increase due under Clause 3.
The other societies face the same problems in the industry but
have made arrangements to implement the increase without
productivity concessions. The Society is in a good financial
position and the Union does not accept that the 3% increase
has to be self-financing.
2. The Company incurred losses in 1990 due mainly to its
efforts to resist a takeover bid. The workers supported the
Society at that time and the Society returned to profit in
1991. The Union has co-operated with a rationalisation
programme which has reduced staff costs by almost #1.5
million in 1991. The full concession of 3% under Clause 3
would not be a major consideration against savings of that
order.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Clause 3 was included in the P.E.S.P. in order to provide
for local bargaining with organisations which had exceptional
levels of profitability and could afford increases in excess
of the basic levels agreed. It was clearly intended that
implementation of Clause 3 would be the exception rather than
the rule. For the claim to succeed the Union must be able to
demonstrate that exceptional profits have been made in recent
years. This is clearly not the case in relation to the
Society (financial details supplied to the Court).
2. The Society is not in a position to bear the increase
costs associated with the claim which would have a serious
affect on its operational costs. The primary consideration
must be the viability of the Society. The recent
rationalisation programme resulted in a reduction in operating
costs but this was necessary to ensure the survival of the
Society. The Society does not accept that past productivity
achieved in the rationalisation programme should be dealt with
under the P.E.S.P.
3. The Society, in a letter dated 12th June, 1992 to the
Union (details supplied to the Court), has sought to find a
basis for meeting the claim within a framework acceptable to
both sides. The Society has asked the Union to consider
looking at the claim on a quid quo pro basis.
Claim (2) Payment of retrospection to a laboratory technician
BACKGROUND:
6. The Society employs 2 grades in the laboratory i.e. laboratory
assistants at #173.56 per week and laboratory technicians at
#190.57 per week. The worker concerned was employed as a
laboratory technician and received his City and Guilds
qualification in 1988. His claim for up-grading to laboratory
technician was rejected by the Society at that time. The worker
was subsequently promoted to laboratory technician with effect
from December, 1991. The Union is claiming payment of
retrospection of the difference between the laboratory assistant
and laboratory technician rate from the date the worker obtained
his City and Guilds qualification. The Society rejects the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. The worker notified management when he obtained his City and
Guilds qualification. He should have been promoted with effect
from the appropriate date. This is justified on the grounds that
he has applied his higher skills since then. Full retrospection
should be paid.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. The duties of the worker have gradually changed over a number
of years. The Society recently examined the duties and agreed to
a regrading on the basis of two factors i.e. (a) the fact that the
worker has achieved City and Guilds qualifications and (b) the
additional duties undertaken by him over the years.
Implementation of regrading from a current date was not
unreasonable.
Claim (3) Productivity payments in respect of 2 laboratory
assistants
BACKGROUND:
9. In 1983 the Society introduced a Bactoscan Milk Testing
Machine in the laboratory. In 1985 the Union made a claim on
behalf of 2 laboratory assistants for a pay increase of #5 per
week, because on the extra work involved. The claim was referred
to the Labour Court and in L.C.R. 9997 it recommended as follows:-
"The Court does not consider that the introduction of the new
process warrants further payments to the workers concerned.
The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of this
claim".
The Union claims that a productivity payment of #27 per week is
merited in respect of the extra work involved in the use of the
Bactoscan machine. The Society rejects the claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
10. The basis of the claim is the extra work involved with the
machine which is not in use in any of the other co-operatives in
the region. It requires constant attention and is quite demanding
physically. Running repairs are required and the workers have
shown a commitment beyond the call of duty of their grade. The
workers should be compensated for their extra efforts and
co-operation.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
11. The claim is not sustainable and is contrary to the terms of
the P.E.S.P.. Concession of the claim would break the relativity
between the laboratory assistants and laboratory technicians. The
Society has a maintenance agreement on the Bactoscan machine which
provides for servicing and incidental call-out. Any running
repairs carried out by laboratory assistants are a normal part of
their duties and do not warrant any increase in pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
12. Having considered the 3 claims before it the Court recommends
as follows:
(1) 3% P.E.S.P.
The Court considers that in the circumstances the parties
should enter immediately into negotiations on a reasonable
quid pro quo which would allow for payment of the 3%. The
Court will be available to assist the parties if they fail to
reach agreement.
(2) Laboratory Technician
The Court recommends that he be paid the new rate
retrospective to the 1st January, 1991.
(3) Laboratory Assistants
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
7th July, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.S./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.