FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH SUGAR PLC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of workers at the Mallow plant for pay parity with Carlow.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 650 workers operating from its two main plants at Carlow and Mallow with smaller operations at Thurles and Tuam. In December 1994 and September 1995 workers of various grades in the Company's Carlow plant were awarded lump sum payments following investigations which were held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. In October, 1995 the Union, on behalf of workers at the Mallow plant, claimed similar payments on behalf of the particular job grades which also apply at the Mallow factory. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the 25th April, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd May, 1996. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 19th June 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The grading structure within the Company, first established in the 1970's, placed all jobs in 8 grades, paid at different wage levels. The claimants were, at that time, placed in different grades and paid at that grade whether located in Mallow or Carlow. Despite many attempts over the years to establish a review of the grading structure, none has taken place.
2. Following an upgrading for workers in Carlow in 1987, the Court recommended that the grade of worker engaged in 'climbing/rigging' be upgraded to Grade 6. This was subsequently applied to that grade in Mallow.
3. In 1988 a third party mechanism was agreed by the parties which would adjudicate on claims. It was agreed that any grading settlements in individual plants would have to be monitored by representatives from other plants to ensure that adjustments applied across the board.
4. The agreements reached on payments at conciliation in 1994/95 were on foot of union claims for upgrading. In both agreements clear reference was made to the fact that there were interim payments made pending the finalisation of the 1PC grading review. The Union understands that the interim report of the current 1PC grading review categorises the jobs involved in this claim at similar grades in Carlow and Mallow.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Over the years, claims from various locations have been dealt with independently and decisions made on changes in one location did not apply automatically to the others. All claims were considered on their individual merits. (Details to the Court).
2. As provided for in the "Agreed Terms of Reference" on grading, where a claim or claims equally affect more than one area then two representatives from each such area would attend the meeting plus one from each area indirectly affected. There were no representatives from Mallow at the original Carlow claims and the Mallow claim arose only after negotiations had been finalised in Carlow.
3. In October, 1995, negotiations took place in Mallow on changes that took place in that factory and offers were made and accepted for these changes. Again, all these claims were considered on their individual merits and some claims were rejected on the basis that there was no justification for these claims as no changes had taken place in Mallow. These lump sums did not apply anywhere else in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties. Taking into account all the information before it, particularly the Labour Relations Commission correspondence clearly stating that the payments made were interim payments pending the outcome of the I.P.C. grading exercise, the Court finds no basis for the lump sums in Mallow being different to Carlow, for jobs on the same grade.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
10th July, 1996______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.