FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNONSIDE CO-OPERATIVE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Claim for fitter's mate rate of pay for process operators.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with the Company in relation to a claim for an increase in pay on behalf of 18 process operators. The claim has its origins in a company rationalisation plan in 1995 which was the subject of two Labour Court Recommendations LCR14714 and LCR14727 both issued in April 1995. LCR14727 recommended, inter alia, that the Company and the Union review the pay structure after a period of two years. Further negotiations took place after the issue of LCR14727 and a Company/Union document was agreed. This provided for a review of all aspects of the revised structures after one year.
In March, 1996 the Union referred three issues to the Labour Relations Commission:-
(a) A claim for the fitter's mate rate for all process operators,
(b) A review of manning levels,
(c) An increase in service pay.
A conciliation conference took place in May, 1996. The Union's position was that as the employees had co-operated with change, there were issues which had to be addressed. The Company's response was that when account was taken of the costs of rationalisation (£750,000), it was not yet appropriate to talk of real benefits to the Company, although productivity had improved, because the new manning levels had not been tested over a full season. Additionally, the Company stated, the claims were cost-increasing and in breach of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
The Union argued that the claims arose from LCR14727 and had nothing to do with the PCW. The Union's primary concern was with the process operators who had borne the bulk of the changes. Following a review carried out by the Company, the Company stated that pay increases were confined to the terms of the PCW. The Company also indicated that a full assessment of the benefits of the rationalisation plan could only be carried out at the end of the 1997 season.
A further conciliation conference took place in April, 1997. The Union stated that 2 years had passed during which the Company had had the benefit of the productivity measures and, accordingly, that the pay issue needed to be addressed. The Company responded that the pay issue could not be looked at in isolation and that a review of all aspects had been carried out by the Company. The Company claimed that it was essential that productivity and skill-levels be enhanced to ensure that it was in a sound position vis-�-vis its competitors and also to ensure that it would be able to make any possible merger negotiations in a position of strength. The Union indicated that it wished to proceed with the review with all its implications in terms of what was provided for in LCR14727. The claim being pursued was to have the fitter's mate rate of pay applied to the process operators, amounting to an increase of approximately 6%. The Company's position was that further skills upgrading would be required if the necessary productivity improvements were to be achieved. The Company sought the relaxation of the seniority clause in the Company/Union agreement for a period of 6 months to enable workers to be moved for training purposes. In return for this co-operation, the Company would pay the 18 process operators 3% over and above the terms of Partnership 2000, on a phased basis. This was rejected by the Union which reiterated that it sought the fitter's mate rate.
Following a subsequent conciliation conference, in July, 1997, agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court, on the 28th of July, 1997, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, in Roscommon, on the 8th of October, 1997.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The seniority clause within the agreement between the Union and the Company is a serious impediment to the completion of training and, by implication, total interchangeability and flexibility.
2. The Company only want a relaxation of this seniority clause, in order to complete this necessary training.
3. The Company is prepared to increase pay for the 18 personnel identified by 1% per annum for three years, over and above the terms of the Partnership 2000, even though the Company's basic rates of pay are, on average, 7% higher than some of their competitors. This is the Company's way of honouring Section 3 of Labour Court Recommendation 14727 in respect of the 18 process operators.
4. A full assessment of each individual employee is necessary in order to identify skill shortfalls that are preventing him/her from making maximum use of his/her potential.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company offered a small increase on each phase of P2000, provided the seniority rule is relaxed to allow further training of the operatives. This was seen as an attempt at further rationalisation and the workers maintain that the Company should address the question of the pay review contained in LCR14727 and agreed by the Company. If, following the review, the Company should wish to have further discussions on the question of seniority, the Union would be available.
2. The difference between the pay of operators and that of fitter's mates is about 6%. Bearing in mind all of the changes to the duties of operation since the start of rationalisation the claim for an increase of 6% is reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, together with the responses they made at the Court hearing, is satisfied that the claim for the fitter's rate of pay should not be pursued on behalf of the 18 employees.
However, taking into account the aspirations of both parties, the Court recommends the following to resolve the dispute:-
1. The management should increase the basic pay of the workers concerned by 4% in total, spread over 3 years, in line with Programme 2000. On acceptance of this recommendation, rates of pay will be increased by 2%. On the anniversary date for the next 2 years, 1% will be applied;
2. In return, the workers will co-operate with management in the assessment of individual skill shortfall;
3. Noting that the Company's requirement for a relaxation of the seniority clause is limited, all employees should co-operate with management in the implementation of the training programme, with no seniority issues being used to hinder the training.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
22nd of November, 1997______________________
M.K./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.