Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95229 Case Number: LCR14807 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: OHSHIMA IRELAND LTD (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Rates of Pay.
Recommendation:
5. It is accepted by the Company that no discussion took place on
the change in rates of pay or on the introduction of a rate of pay
for Temporary Employees.
While the Court accepts that the Company has serious financial
problems, the unilateral introduction of two new rates of pay,
while deemed necessary in management's view, is not in accordance
with normal industrial relations practice and is guaranteed to
lead to a major deterioration in the Industrial Relations climate
in the Company.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into discussions, to
try to reach an agreement that would take into account both sides'
aspirations.
If the parties fail to reach agreement within 6 weeks the Court
will make a recommendation.
Division: Mr Flood Mr Pierce Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95229 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14807
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: OHSHIMA IRELAND LTD
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Rates of Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company, which is based in Clonshaugh Industrial
Estate, Coolock, employs 67 workers in the manufacture
of precision pressed metal parts.
2. In early 1994 the Company recruited approximately 20
temporary workers. They were employed as support
workers to the press operators and their duties
included packing cases and preparing packaging. They
were paid a rate of #146.87 per week. The rates of pay
applying to operators in the press area with effect
from April, 1994 were as follows:-
(1) Temporary Operator - Lower rate #146.87
(2) Temporary Operator - Higher rate #153.00
(3) Probationary press Operator #166.99
(4) Permanent Press Operator #184.67.
3. The Union claims that no agreement exists in relation
to the rates at 1 and 2 above. The Union sought the
application of the agreed rates of pay of #166.99 per
week.
4. The Company's position is that in the period mid 1993
to December, 1994 an assembly operation existed in the
Company and workers employed on probation in that area
were paid the rate of #146.87 per week. The Company
viewed this rate as applying to mainly unskilled work,
and applied it to the general operators in the press
operation.
5. Local level discussions took place but no agreement was
reached and the matter was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took
place on 6th February, 1995. As no agreement was
reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court
on 30th March, 1995 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing
took place on 30th May, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company recruited the workers concerned as general
operatives into the press section at a lower rate of
pay than the agreed minimum rates of pay.
2. Temporary workers and permanent workers doing the same
work should be paid the same rates of pay. No
agreement exists between the parties in relation to
paying temporary workers less than that paid to
permanent workers.
3. The workers co-operated with management in the start-up
arrangements for the assembly operation. It was the
Union's understanding that agreement would eventually
be reached on rates of pay for the assembly workers.
4. The Union is seeking the application of the agreed
rates of pay to the workers concerned with appropriate
retrospection. The Company's argument regarding
inability to pay is unacceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Whilst the Company acknowledges that it should have
discussed the introduction of a new temporary rate of
pay with the Union, it did not have the time to do so.
In February, 1994. The Company had to meet urgent
production requirements. It directed press operators
to concentrate on machine operations and recruited new
employees to perform the manual aspects of the job.
The rate of #146.87 already existed in the factory for
unskilled work in the assembly area.
2. The Company is in a serious financial position and
cannot afford to pay any increases in rates for
temporary employees which may have knock-on effects for
the other grades.
3. The rates of pay in the Company relate to the different
responsibilities and skill levels required by each
category of employees. Section 5.8 of the
Company/Union agreement on temporary employment states
that "temporary employees will be entitled to the same
rate of pay as applied to permanent employees in the
same position" (details supplied). The company's
position is that the temporary employees are not in the
same position, doing the same work as permanent press
operators.
4. Employees do not automatically remain on the lower
rates of pay. Some workers have moved to permanent
jobs and others to higher paid temporary work.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. It is accepted by the Company that no discussion took place on
the change in rates of pay or on the introduction of a rate of pay
for Temporary Employees.
While the Court accepts that the Company has serious financial
problems, the unilateral introduction of two new rates of pay,
while deemed necessary in management's view, is not in accordance
with normal industrial relations practice and is guaranteed to
lead to a major deterioration in the Industrial Relations climate
in the Company.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into discussions, to
try to reach an agreement that would take into account both sides'
aspirations.
If the parties fail to reach agreement within 6 weeks the Court
will make a recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th June, 1995 _______________
F.B./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.