Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95619 Case Number: LCR15043 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH SUGAR - and - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE (MSF |
Claim for increase in basic pay.
Recommendation:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
an increase in pay.
The Court recommends that the parties, as a matter of urgency,
discuss the specific details of the Performance Related Reward
Scheme.
Division: Mr McGrath Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95619 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15043
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH SUGAR
AND
MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE (MSF)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for increase in basic pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which was privatised in April, 1991, is one
sector of the Greencore Group which employs 700 workers at
two plants in Carlow and Mallow. The Union's claim for an
increase in basic salary on behalf of approximately 36
Agricultural Services Staff arises from a reduction in
numbers from approximately 50 staff to its present
complement.
The Union claims that the workload has increased
significantly for the remaining staff, while the Company has
benefited from considerable savings through reduced salary
costs. Discussions were ongoing from December, 1993, and in
November, 1994 the Company proposed a Performance Related
Reward Scheme (PRRS). The Union was prepared to consider the
scheme in conjunction with a basic pay increase, but the
Company rejected any increase in basic salary.
As agreement could not be achieved at local level, the Union
referred the dispute to the Labour Relations Commission,
which held conciliation conferences on 24th February, 1995
and 28th August, 1995. No agreement was reached at
conciliation and the Union requested that the dispute be
referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 17th November, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Many changes have occurred since the implementation of
the restructuring programme. A reduction of 25% in the
number of staff has meant increased workloads, increased
areas to be covered and increased responsibilities for
individual workers. The acreage under beet has not
declined and there is now a greater emphasis on the sale
of commercial products. The whole character of the job
has changed.
2. The Company has benefited from increased sales and
profits over the past number of years, in addition to
savings on the now-reduced salary costs.
3. In December, 1993 the Company gave a commitment that it
would "examine the remuneration package, particularly in
the performance-related arena" when restructuring had
been implemented. The Union believed that a basic pay
increase would be part of the package. It is prepared
to consider the PRRS in conjunction with a basic pay
increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in an intensely competitive market.
It is restricted by the EU Quota System and EU Pricing
Policy, therefore price increase potential is limited.
Cost increases cannot be passed on to the market place
as the Company is in competition with EU producers whose
running costs are considerably lower.
2. Following consultations with the Union in 1993, the
Company proposed a rationalisation programme (details
supplied to the Court) which included a number of
voluntary redundancies. These were valid under the
Redundancy Payment Acts, which means that the Company
was carrying an unsustainable overhead for a
considerable period of time.
3. A sub-committee, comprising members of management and
the Union, was set up to negotiate terms under the
proposed Performance Related Reward Scheme. The Union
has stated that it is not opposed to the scheme and
management believes that a scheme with identifiable
targets, which will not contravene the terms of the PCW,
should be implemented. The Company has been consistent
in its refusal to negotiate a basic pay increase since
1993, as it could have considerable knock-on
effects to the detriment of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for
an increase in pay.
The Court recommends that the parties, as a matter of urgency,
discuss the specific details of the Performance Related Reward
Scheme.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st December, 1995 Tom McGrath
____________________________________
D.G./D.T. Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Ms. Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.