FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH SUGAR - AND - AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Restoration of differentials consequent on adjustment of general workers' rate.
(2) Lump sum payments consequent on granting of same to some general workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1994, the Company entered into a review of its grading structure with SIPTU in relation to its general operatives. The review was carried out by the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) which recommended a 5-grade structure in place of the existing 8-grade structure. The parties agreed in relation to the IPC recommendation, but failed to agree on the placing of values on the different grades. The matter was referred to the Labour Court and in May, 1997 the Court issued recommendation number LCR15524 which recommended new rates of pay for the workers concerned.
Arising from the recommendation the Unions submitted a claim on behalf of craft workers for the restoration of the differentials which previously existed. The Unions claim that in 1980/1981 a series of agreements between the Company and the craft workers established the maximum of the general workers scale at not less than 95% of the base of the craft scale.
The Company denied that a differential had existed on the basis of not less than 95% but made an offer to increase craft rates, conditional on the following productivity changes:
1. If required, any employees on a particular rate may be required to carry out the duties of anybody on a similar or lower rate with the same discipline.
2. The co-operation and utilisation by all craftsmen of a Standard Computer Aided Maintenance Management System (CAMMS) which effectively means interfacing with a computer on works orders, on plant history, preventive maintenance and stores.
3. The use, as required, of modern maintenance tools and techniques e.g. bearing analysis.
4. Instrumentation work requires the use of mechanical and electrical skills and as such all instrument craftsmen who have not already done so, will be required to undertake conversion courses and to apply the full range of skills on the instrumentation equipment.
5. Elimination of all additives.
In return for the above, the Company proposal that in future there should be six new craft rates as follows:-
19971997
1st Oct.1st May
p.p.h p.p.h
Rate 1Basic Craft Workers Rate
(Starting Rate/Temporary Rate) 7.31 6.95
Rate 2Intermediate Craft Workers Rate
after 3 years permanent emp. 7.86 7.74
Rate 3Senior Craft Workers Rate
after 6 years permanent emp. 8.35 7.94
Rate 4Inspection Craft Workers Rate 8.81 8.38
Rate 5Foreman CraftWorkers Rate 9.05 8.60
Rate 6Engineering Technician Rate 9.50
The Unions rejected the Company's offer as the proposals did not adequately address the restoration of the differentials. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on the 15th of July, 1997 and the 18th of August, 1997. At the second conciliation conference negotiations broke down on the issue of retrospection lump sum payments as outlined in the Union letter of the 19th of August, 1996 (details supplied to the Court).
A further conciliation conference took place on the 8th of September, 1997 at which the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a proposal to both parties for consideration but this was subsequently withdrawn as the Union side refused to recommend it for acceptance. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of September, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th of September, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The pay rates as outlined in the Industrial Relations Officer's proposal were acceptable to the craft negotiating committee and would be deemed to address the differential claim. However, the conditions as outlined in points 1-5 required clarification and negotiation. Having received clarification the committee is of the view that points 1, 2, 3, and 5 can be resolved.
2. The proposed CAMMS is not acceptable. The introduction of this system had for a considerable period been discussed in Mallow under the heading "Re-negotiating of General Agreement/Annualised Hours Contract". Major difficulties emerged between the parties on this matter. However, the Company confirmed on the 12th of February, 1997 that this matter is being dealt with separately under the re-negotiating of the general agreement.
3. The issue of annualised hours is still a live issue. In putting its position before the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th of September, 1997 the Company stated that due to the exhaustive discussions that had taken place involving unions representing general operatives and craft workers the matter would not be addressed until after the 1997 Sugar Campaign. It is in the context of these discussions that the Unions are willing to deal with CAMMS.
4. The Company has acknowledged the existence of the relativity between Grade 8 and the craft scale. In the circumstances it is reasonable that the back money and lump sum payments related to Grade 8 should be taken into account when addressing the Unions' claim.
5. The real matters of dispute between the parties relate to the backpay arising out of LCR15524 and CAMMS. In addressing these issues the Court is requested to produce a solution to a dispute which would have serious consequences for the Company and its employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no established relativity between craft rates and general workers' rates of pay. Having said that the Company does appreciate that there has been a certain relationship between the craft workers and general workers and the Company is prepared to offer significant increases to its craft workers in return for the proposed changes in work practices which the Company considers to be reasonable.
2. For some considerable period the Company was engaged in negotiations with SIPTU discussing its method of operation and how it should conduct its business into the future. After long negotiations and a seven week strike it reached agreement on new rates of pay in return for significant changes in work practices incorporating full implementation of a new grading structure.
3. In view of the agreement reached between the Company and SIPTU on the establishment of a promotional grade (Grade 5) the Company is willing to establish a promotional rate for a new position of Engineering Technicians which is open to all craftsmen subject to the attainment of agreed criteria. It is proposed that a sub-committee be set up to set out the qualification and educational criteria to be applied for the engineering technicians rate.
4. The Company has honoured all its commitments under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP) and the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW) and these claims for increases in rates of pay are additional to the increases agreed under the Partnership 2000.
5. At previous meetings prior to August 19th, the Unions' claim for retrospection was £1,000. The Company was positively considering this claim when the claim changed following payment to some SIPTU members of additional retrospective payments for specific changes implemented in 1994 and 1995 and which were the subject of negotiation and proposals from the Labour Relations Commission in 1994 and 1995. This element of retrospection also formed part of LCR15524. The Company see no justification for this claim given that the claim is for payments of huge amounts for all craftsmen when only 25% of SIPTU employees received payments which were in fact made for specific job changes implemented from 1994 onwards.
6. The Company requests the Court to confirm that its proposals in relation to the changes it is seeking in return for very significant increases in craft rates of pay are fair and reasonable and to reject the Unions' claim for retrospection, as the specific job changes that have been undertaken by some general workers have not been undertaken by the craftsmen.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the detailed oral and written submissions made by the parties to this dispute.
The Court established with both parties that this claim was submitted in relation to the craftsmen employed in Irish Sugar Limited, based on their pay relative to the new scales agreed with the general operatives for acceptance of productivity changes in that Company.
The new general operatives scales were implemented from 1st May, 1997. Some general operatives were stated to have accepted changes in their work during the period 1994 to 1997, with temporary pay adjustments at the time. These received back payments to the times of their individual job changes, based on the additional increases on the new scales that were finally agreed in 1997. All other general operatives were awarded £1,000 in lieu of arrears when the new scales were agreed. Some 65% of those receiving back payments were in the new Grade 4, with which the craftsmen claim relationship.
The Court, having considered the situation overall, finds as follows:-
A. There is no basis on which the Court can recommend reprospection as claimed for craftsmen back to 1994, as no productivity changes in work are claimed back to that time.
B. The Industrial Relations Officer's proposed pay scales, made at conciliation but subsequently withdrawn, should be implemented from 1st May, 1997, in return for the five changes requested by the Comapny.
In the event that the Unions' concerns regarding loss of overtime stemming from the CAMMS introduction prove correct such losses should be compensated in an agreed manner.
Any other difficulties arising from CAMMS cannot be assessed at this time, and the system should be introduced for a trial period, and subjected to joint management/union assessment.
C. The £1,000 lump sum payment to the general operatives should be similarly paid to the craftsmen.
D. As the claim from the craft unions for relativity adjustment was first submitted on the 16th of August, 1996, the Court recommends that all craftsmen be paid a further lump sum by way of arrears equivalent to a commencement date of 16th of August, 1996 on the new scales.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
30th September, 1997______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.