Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92656 Case Number: LCR14004 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: J.A. MONT IRELAND LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% pay increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
8. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. The Court notes that the parties have differing
views as to the manner in which the salary paid to one named
employee is expressed. His position is clearly unique and
accordingly requires a special solution.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company's
proposals be accepted subject to the named employee continuing on
his existing pay rate (adjusted by normal increases) to 31/12/93
and that he then be paid a sum of #15,000 as compensation. This
recommendation relates solely to this individual and is not to be
considered as setting any precedent.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92656 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14004
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: J.A. MONT IRELAND LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% pay increase
under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company (formerly Nokia Ireland, Limited) employs 180
workers at its plant in Finglas and is part of a major European
consumer products Group. It manufactures consumer tissue products
for the Irish market.
3. The Company sought a number of concessions in return for the
implementation of a 3% increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
Agreement was possible on all issues except one. The outstanding
issue involves a supervisor who works day duty and is in receipt
of a shift payment. The worker concerned commenced employment
with the Company in 1960 and was promoted to supervisor in 1976.
He was based in the paper factory which is a two shift operation
and involves some overtime working. In 1984 he was transferred to
the raw material stores which is a day job. On his transfer he
retained his shift premium.
4. During the course of the negotiations on P.E.S.P. the Company
offered to buy out the shift payment as it considered the
situation to be anomalous. (The Company is currently in
negotiation with another branch of the Union endeavouring to buy
out similar shift arrangements from approximately 30 workers).
The Union rejected the Company's offer (increased to #12,000) and
sought the retention of the present salary arrangement.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
18th September, 1992. A conciliation conference was held on 12th
October, 1992. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on 23rd October, 1992 for investigation and recommendation.
A Court hearing took place on 10th November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. It is wrong for the Company to use the issue of 'shift
payment for day work' in negotiations as part of an item
affecting 26 workers, which does not directly affect them.
2. The worker was approached by the Company and offered the
job in the raw materials section. He was offered and accepted
his present salary which was offered to him by the Company.
The worker took up his position in good faith and it is unfair
of the Company to use Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. to renege on a
freely entered into agreement made by a previous management.
3. This worker's position is different to other workers who
retained their shift premiums on transfer in that he was
offered a specific salary for a job. The other workers
transferred voluntarily.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company is operating in a very competitive market.
The Company's production costs are higher than its competitors
and its sister plants.
2. A practice has developed over the years whereby workers
transferring from shift work to day work have retained shift
premiums. The Company is attempting to rectify this anomalous
situation in order to bring its costs more into line with its
competitors.
3. The Company considers that its offer to buy out the shift
payment of the worker is fair and reasonable in the
circumstances.
DECISION:
8. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties. The Court notes that the parties have differing
views as to the manner in which the salary paid to one named
employee is expressed. His position is clearly unique and
accordingly requires a special solution.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Company's
proposals be accepted subject to the named employee continuing on
his existing pay rate (adjusted by normal increases) to 31/12/93
and that he then be paid a sum of #15,000 as compensation. This
recommendation relates solely to this individual and is not to be
considered as setting any precedent.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
-------------
19th March, 1993 Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR MICHAEL DAUGHEN, COURT SECRETARY.