FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MITSUI DENMAN IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1995 the parties negotiated a restructuring plan titled "Competitiveness - CompanyOperationPlan". The plan was negotiated at local level, at the Labour Relations Commission and was the subject of a Labour Court hearing on the 16th of August, 1995. Labour Court Recommendation LCR14892 was accepted and the plan was implemented in October, 1995.
In October, 1996, the Union submitted a claim for a pay increase on behalf of one employee who, it claims, has taken on a number of duties formerly completed by a storesperson. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that all employees, including the worker concerned, were compensated for changes in work practices. The claim was discussed at a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 22nd of April, 1997. Agreement was not possible and the issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of March, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the 8th of April, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The worker's claim is for parity with the storeman who has retained a shift allowance of approximately £54.54 per week.
2. Since 1995 the worker has carried out additional duties which had previously been done by stores personnel and by pack out personnel. The Company has not disputed the extra work carried out by this employee.
3. The worker concerned was unfortunate that he was out sick at the time of the Agreement in 1995 and did not, therefore, have the opportunity to put forward a submission to the Labour Court.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All the necessary changes in operation and the individual roles of the employees, including the claimant's, were discussed in detail and were accepted by the Union prior to the implementation of the plan.
2. All employees were fully compensated as per the original company financial proposals, the enhanced measures resulting from the Labour Relations Commission and the further lump sum payments as proposed by the Labour Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the additional duties assigned to the claimant are provided for in the Agreement between the parties.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th April, 1998______________________
D.G./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.