FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : DAIRYGOLD CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Harmonisation of rates.
BACKGROUND:
2. Dairygold Co-operative Society which is based in the Munster area employs approximately 2,800 people in the processing of dairy and meat products for the home and export markets. It commenced trading in 1990 following the merger of Mitchelstown and Ballyclough Co-operatives. The Society's main processing sites are located at Mallow, Lombardstown (referred to Dairygold West) and Mitchelstown, Mogeely, CMP Cork and Outrath (referred to as Dairygold East). It also has a compound feed milling operation and a comprehensive network of 73 retail outlets servicing farmers and customers.
In 1997/1998 discussions took place between the parties regarding the Union's claim for the harmonisation of pay and conditions of employment between the two former co-operative societies (referred to as Dairygold East and Dairygold West) and the implementation of the Working Time Act. The Company's position is that harmonisation issues can only be dealt with in conjunction with the implementation of the Working Time Act.
The Union is seeking the elimination of all anomalies arising from the merger. In relation to the Working Time Act, it is seeking that the workers suffer no loss of earnings arising from a reduction in hours worked and compensation for revised working arrangements.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences took place on the 30th of April, 1998 and the 1st of May, 1998 following which the Industrial Relations Officer put forward proposals for the resolution of certain anomalies and a framework document for negotiation on the introduction of the 48 hour week (details supplied to the Court).
Further conciliation conferences took place at which the Union listed 21 issues (details supplied to the Court) for resolution and the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a further set of proposals (details supplied to the Court) in the context of acceptance of the framework document. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th of August, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of August, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union formally raised the issue of harmonisation in 1994 and again in 1996 but at various union/management conferences between 1990 and 1994, the subject would have been raised. Management did not question the legitimacy of the workers' aspirations.
2. Management has deliberately procrastinated on the issue of harmonisation. The workers are concerned that the Union has been too patient and too conciliatory in dealing with the issue. The solution must include an appropriate operative date. The offer of the 1st of January, 1997 does not address the claim that has been outstanding since 1990. An operative date of January, 1994, would be the least that would satisfy the workers.
3. The framework document arose from discussions at the Labour Relations Commission in the context of the implementation of the Working Time Directive. It primarily provides for an understanding that special arrangements made under the Directive do not constitute a precedent for claims from workers who are not involved. However, the workers consider that it is inappropriate to include this document in the harmonisation proposals. There is no connection between the two issues, given that the harmonisation issue predates the Working Time Directive by seven years. In the circumstances, the Union is seeking that this clause be excluded from any proposals on harmonisation.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society has made every effort to resolve the problems at issue within the parameters of its existing agreements and Partnership 2000 constraints. It has given every consideration to the various proposals/suggestions made by the Industrial Relations Officer.
2. Harmonisation issues can only be entertained in conjunction with the implementation of the Working Time Act, therefore, there is a critical necessity for the framework document of the 1st of May, 1998.
3. It is the Society's view that by linking the harmonisation issue to the introduction and implementation of the Working Time Directive, together with changes in existing work practices, both sides could achieve most of their stated objectives within present cost structures and parameters.
4. The Society finds the content of the Industrial Relations Officer's letter dated July 17th impossible to satisfy within its current cost structure. The costs associated with this document together with the proposal of the 1st of May amount to almost £2.2 million for 1998, with on-going costs amounting to £1 million per annum. The document's proposals are generous in the extreme.
5. The list of claims tabled by the Union on the 24th of June, 1998 would involve a cost of £5.4 million in 1998 with annual costs of £2.2 million.
6. Harmonisation of pay rates and dates retrospectively is not an issue as various exercises indicate no real difference in annual earnings.
7. The Society is requesting the Court to recommend that both parties adhere to the principles of the framework document and the harmonisation proposals of the 1st of May which it believes are fair and reasonable. Given the size and diversity of the business of the Society, it has to be realised that all issues cannot be harmonised.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in respect of the various issues in dispute:
Organisation of Working Time Act 1997
The parties should accept that the implementation of the restrictions on working time imposed by this legislation is not a matter of choice and must apply throughout the organisation. On that basis the “Framework for the Negotiation of a 48 Hour Week In Dairygold” produced by the LRC should now be accepted by the Union, as an integral part of the overall settlement.
Clocking Allowance
The £2 Sunday clocking allowance should be paid throughout the Organisation.
Night Shift Allowance
The £9 (approx.) night shift allowance should be paid throughout the Organisation.
Wage Round Operative Dates
The Court notes that agreement has been reached on the harmonisation of application dates of wage rounds. The net issue between the parties is the effective date of this adjustment. The Court has examined the position resulting from the difference in rates between Mallow and Mitchelstown and the differing commencement dates for wage rounds between both locations. The Court is satisfied that there has been no significant loss or gain resulting from the six month gap in application dates. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the harmonisation should be effective from the 1st July, 1998.
Grade Rates
The difference in grade rates between Mallow and Mitchelstown should be eliminated. However, in view of the differences between the parties as to the comparability of work and grading arrangements, these should be resolved, where necessary, by the use of a job evaluation by an agreed third party.
Administrative grades
All pay and conditions of employment of administrative grades, apart from start and finish times should be similar between locations. The option of a possible extra scale point adjustment for loss of a tea break should apply from the date of acceptance of any such break loss.
Laboratory
Laboratory Technicians should have parity between sites with the new Mitchelstown scale. The present red-circling of some existing staff following the introduction of the new scale in 1992 should be accepted.
Laboratory Assistants should have parity with the first ten points of the Mitchelstown scale. Where it is claimed that similar work exists between certain Laboratory Assistants and some staff paid up to a further 5 point scale on the basis of special duties, such cases should be resolved by the use of job evaluation by an agreed third party.
Liquid Milk Delivery
As those employed in Springmount and C.M.P. are engaged in similar work, the proposed parity between both locations should be accepted. The issue relating to the loading of trucks at one of the locations should be resolved by local agreement.
Shop Assistants
The Court accepts that local town rates are a feature of the distributive trade and on that basis could not recommend total parity. However, the Court does recommend that the rate applying in Mogeely should be accepted as the minimum applicable.
Storekeepers
The Court does not accept that the duties attaching to the storekeeper position at Mallow are comparable with those at Mitchelstown. The Court does not, therefore, recommend concession of parity between locations.
Higher Duty Payments
It is recommended that permanently appointed relief staff should receive the grade for the higher job being relieved. Non appointed staff who may be asked on occasions to relieve on another job should be paid the appropriate rate (if higher) for the hours worked. If cover is provided for 3 hours or more, they should be paid for the full day. If the higher rate is paid for 4 days in any week payment should be made at that rate for the full week.
The parties should agree a list of permanently appointed relief staff at the Mallow location.
Overtime
The proposal of the IRO, as per his letter of 17th July 1997 should be accepted.
Shift Changes
The IRO’s proposal that any member of staff who is required to change shift on 3 or more occasions in one week, should qualify for 1 extra days leave, should be accepted.
Call-Out
The IRO’s proposal that staff called out to work without notice should receive a minimum of 3 hours at the appropriate rate plus travelling expenses should be accepted.
Holidays
In the course of the hearing it was clarified to the Court that all locations have the same total entitlement to holidays. The Court recommends that an entitlement to 20 days annual leave apply to all locations together with all 9 public holidays. The IRO’s proposal on payment for work done on public holidays should be accepted.
Mass Time
The anachronism regarding paid Mass time at some locations no longer takes account of changes in Church arrangements and requirements. It should, therefore, be ended.
Canteen
The IRO’s proposal as set out in his letter of 17 July 1997 should be accepted.
Clothing
Where protective clothing is provided at one location, it should be provided for those engaged in similar jobs throughout the group. Apart from the foregoing the Court does not recommend any change in the current arrangements regarding the provision of protective clothing and Company uniforms where appropriate.
Remaining Anomalies
It should be accepted that total uniformity throughout the organisation involving different businesses, plants and sites is neither practical or possible. In return for acceptance of any remaining anomalies the Court recommends a payment of £750 gross.
Operative Date
Except in the case of the recommendation in respect of wage round dates, the harmonisation measures proposed in this recommendation should be operative from 1st January 1996.
Conclusion
Finally, the overall thrust of this recommendation is to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Union's underlying contention that since the Society is now a single entity, conditions of employment based on its former constituent parts are now inappropriate and should, as far as possible be eliminated.
It follows, in the Court's view, that the decision-making process on this recommendation should also reflect the unitary nature of the employment. In that regard the Court notes the assurance given by the Union in the course of the hearing that any recommendation from the Court would be put to its membership as a whole for a single decision. This recommendation is, therefore, made on the understanding that it will be decided on in that manner.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd November, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.