FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SPRING GROVE (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. Parity with other machine operatives/claim for increase of £40 per week.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns a claim by the Union that a number of workers (5-6) on the evening shift are paid less money than day workers for doing the same work. The workers concerned are at the Company's Ballsbridge plant. Spring Grove is an amalgam of a number of companies which it is trying to harmonise.
The workers are required to operate combine batch washers (CBWs) and Spencer washing machines. They are paid a wage of £191.57 per week plus 10% premium - a total of £210.73. The Union claims that workers on the day shift who operate the CBWs and Spencer machines receives £233.36 per week.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on 26th February, 1996. As there was no agreement reached between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 25th April, 1996 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 6th June, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned are general operatives but are expected to carry out the duties and responsibilities of machine operatives. They should be paid the correct rate of pay for the work performed, which is £233.36 per week. Workers on evening shift are usually employed form 4.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. but often have to work later.
2. The Company did not, as it claims, discuss an offer of £203.86 per week plus pension and sick pay benefits at the conciliation conference on 26th February, 1996. Evening-shift workers were not included in any talks at local level with the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1992, the Company has been attempting to harmonise all terms and conditions of employment. The rate of pay being sought by the Union for the workers is known as the "Spencer rate". The Company has been seeking to eliminate the Spencer rate, as with improved technology the extra duties which earned the rate no longer apply. The Company has sought to "red circle" the rate for certain individuals. Employees replacing those on the Spencer rate will not receive that rate.
2. At the conciliation conference on 26th February, 1996, the Company offered a basic rate of £203.86 to the workers concerned, and extended terms of both a sick pay scheme and pension scheme which the workers did not previously enjoy. The Union rejected the offer. Conceding the Union's claim would be outside the terms of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the views expressed by the parties in their oral and written submissions.
The Court notes that with the merging of the companies there is a desire to harmonise terms and conditions of employment. The Court recommends that the parties seek to agree a package acceptable to all concerned as soon as possible.
The Court also notes that the Company is seeking to reach agreement with the Union and the employees regarding the "Spencer rate". The parties should seek to conclude these negotiations at an early date.
In the interim, and pending agreement on the issues referred to above and in the light of the particular circumstances of this case, the employees here concerned should be paid a rate of £203.86 plus a premium of 5% and the pension and sick pay should be applied to them. The position should be reviewed twelve months after the issue of this recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
3rd September, 1996______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.