FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : QUALCERAM PLC, ARKLOW (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. (A) Upward adjustment in pay, (B) 2% Local Bargaining under Partnership 2000, (C) Check-off.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Arklow, Co. Wicklow and manufactures bathroom suites for the Irish and UK markets. It currently employs 150 staff.
The dispute before the Court concerns:-
(A) Upward adjustment in pay,
(B) 2% Local Bargaining under Partnership 2000,
(C) Check-off.
Upward Adjustment in pay
The Union is seeking an increase in the basic rate of pay for its members as the rates are extremely low compared to rates in general. The Company rejects the claim based on (a) the competitive pressures facing the Company, (b) the need for the Company to minimise production costs, (c) the claim is cost increasing and in breach of Partnership 2000.
2% Local Bargaining under Partnership 2000
The Company indicated to the Union that the 2% local bargaining clause of Partnership 2000 had been paid. The Union states that its members were not advised that the increase they received related to the 2%.
Check-off
The Union is seeking the facility for the deduction of union contributions at source. The Company agreed to implement this facility if the members agreed to a Credit Transfer System of payment. The Union would not agree to this.
The above issues were the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 18th of September, 1998. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of December, 1998.
Upward Adjustment in pay
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basic rates of pay should be increased as the rates are extremely low in comparison to rates in general.
2. The Company has confirmed that it is in a sound financial situation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and, therefore, in breach of Partnership 2000.
2. The Company operates in a competitive market. Overall production costs are higher than competitor companies. To concede the Union's claim would have a negative impact on the Company's ability to maintain its position in the market place and remain in Arklow.
2% Local Bargaining under Partnership 2000
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers were not aware that the increases related to the 2% local bargaining under Partnership 2000.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company paid 1.5% of the 2% in January, 1997 and January, 1998 and a further .5% on the 1st of October, 1998. The workers were advised of these increases.
Check-off
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union is seeking that Union contributions be deducted weekly from members wages.
2. The workers cannot agree to a Credit Transfer System of payment as the wages are low enough without adding bank charges.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. It is not Company policy to agree to non-statutory deductions from wages.
2. The introduction of check-off would be cost increasing and would add to the work of administrative staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is not satisfied that the Company did in fact deal with the 2% local bargaining issue in its pay negotiations, it was not made clear to the employees at the time.
Having considered all the information supplied, the Court recommends as follows:-
(1) The Union to accept Credit Transfer and the Company to introduce check-off.
(2) Negotiations to commence on pay increases on a quid-pro-quo basis, covering matters such as output, quality and attendance.
In return for agreement to above, the Company to pay 2% from 1st October, 1998.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
17th December, 1998______________________
G.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.