Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95454 Case Number: LCR15014 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BAXTER HEALTHCARE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR14398.
Recommendation:
5. The Court in Recommendation No. LCR14398 sought to have the
parties address the issue affecting specific workers in the
Company.
The Court was of the view that the way to resolve the problems was
through the introduction of a merit scheme to be applied to the
workers concerned in the dispute.
Accordingly it is the recommendation of the Court that a scheme be
designed to reflect the circumstances of the workers here
concerned and applied to them in the first instance.
Any extension or application of such a scheme, to encompass other
employees is a matter for the Company.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95454 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15014
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BAXTER HEALTHCARE
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation No.
LCR14398.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures healthcare products and has
operated in Ireland since 1972. It employs 650 workers
at its plant in Castlebar and 150 workers in Swinford.
2. A dispute concerning a claim for an increase in pay due
to the introduction of new technology was referred to
the Labour Court in November, 1993. In its
Recommendation (LCR14398), the Court recommended as
follows:-
"Given all the circumstances of this case, the Court
considers, given the pay structures which apply in the
Company, that the claim as made by the Union is not
the appropriate means of addressing the issue.
The Court is of the view that the parties should agree
a mechanism outside of the pay structure which will
take account of such circumstances as described in
this case.
The Court notes the Company was disposed to discuss
the introduction of a merit scheme.
Thus the Court suggests that the parties consider the
matter further."
3. Subsequently the parties had several meetings to try and
resolve the dispute but failed to reach agreement.
A meeting with the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Relations Commission did not resolve the dispute and it
was agreed by both sides to refer the matter back to the
Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th
October, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers involved have co-operated with the
introduction of the new systems and computerisation,
which has resulted in extra work and responsibilities
for them.
2. It is reasonable to expect that in return for the
workers' taking on extra skills and responsibilities
that the Company should compensate them with a salary
increase.
3. The Company is proposing a merit-based pay scheme which
will fundamentally change the method of payment to
workers beyond that which is acceptable to the Union.
4. The proposal of a merit-based pay scheme is outside the
terms of LCR14398. The Union has no mandate from its
members to discuss the introduction of a merit based
pay scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The new Company/Union House Agreement precludes any
special pay increases which are cost-increasing.
2. The Company has done everything possible to comply with
Labour Court Recommendation LCR14398, specifically in
terms of implementing a merit pay system.
3. Concession of this claim to the workers concerned will
have knock-on effects involving other workers, which
the Company cannot afford.
4. The pay and the benefits in the Company are comparable
to similar employment in the region. It is vital that
the Company remains competitive to enable it to
maintain the maximum number employed at the two plants.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court in Recommendation No. LCR14398 sought to have the
parties address the issue affecting specific workers in the
Company.
The Court was of the view that the way to resolve the problems was
through the introduction of a merit scheme to be applied to the
workers concerned in the dispute.
Accordingly it is the recommendation of the Court that a scheme be
designed to reflect the circumstances of the workers here
concerned and applied to them in the first instance.
Any extension or application of such a scheme, to encompass other
employees is a matter for the Company.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th December, 1995 Tom McGrath
L.W./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR LARRY WISELY, COURT SECRETARY.