FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH SUGAR - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Retrospective payments and (2) Anomaly claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. Irish Sugar is a member of the Greencore Group which was privatised in April, 1991. It has employees operating from two main plants, Carlow and Mallow and depots in Thurles and Tuam.
In 1994, the Company entered into a review of its grading structure with the Union in relation to 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 LCR15524 in which it recommended new rates of pay for the workers concerned.
Arising from the recommendation the Craft Unions submitted a claim on behalf of craft workers for the restoration of the differentials which previously existed. In September, 1997, the Court issued LCR15658 in which it recommended:-
" 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made at conciliation but subsequently withdrawn, should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 Company.
The £1,000 lump sum payment to the general operatives
should be similarly paid to the craftsmen.
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."
The Union claims that the effective date of the revised rates of August, 1996 distorted the agreed relativity between the craft grades and general operative for the period August, 1996 to April, 1997. It argues that the anomaly was further compounded by the Company in implementing both recommendations. In the case of general operatives, it offset any arrears due to upgrading against the £1,000 lump-sum while the craft workers were paid the upgrading plus the lump-sum
The Company's position is that it has implemented both recommendations in full and is unwilling to make any further payments.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of July, 1998 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of September, 1998. A recommendation was issued by letter on the 30th of September, 1998.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has acknowledged the existence of the relativity between Grade 8 and the craft scale. Recommendation LCR15658 upset the agreed relativity between the 16th of August, 1996 and the 31st of April, 1997. The Union is seeking that the Court restores the relativity for the period in question.
2. The Company implemented LCR15524 incorrectly in relation to the £1,000 lump-sum payment by its deduction of additives for the period 1994/1997. It is the Union's view that the Court intended the £1,000 payment to be separate from any arrears due to upgrading.
3. The Court did not recommend that the lump-sum payment be offset against arrears due. Management implemented LCR15658 in a more equitable manner. Craft workers were paid the £1,000 plus retrospection.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The original craft claim arose out of the SIPTU settlement and this claim arises out of the subsequent craft settlement. The current claims have the potential for further knock-on claims which could have catastrophic effect on the future of the Company given the rapidly changing business environment.
2. The cost to the Company in settling the 1997 dispute amounts to an ongoing £1.6 million per annum with an initial "up-front" cost of £719,000 in lieu of retrospection.
3. The previous relativities have now been resolved and no issue arises into the future.
4. Both recommendations should be regarded as final settlement of the dispute in 1997 and competing claims arising from the recommendation should not be entertained.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that two Recommendations in question LCR15524 and LCR15658, while similar in some aspects, dealt with specific issues applying at a given time in each case.
Both recommendations included varying lump sums but the date of implementation of the new grading was to be the same for both groups, i.e., May, 1997.
As part of LCR15658 the Court did recommend the payment of a specific lump sum to the craft group, using a particular formula.
It would appear from information given at the Court hearing on this claim that this lump sum was not applied but that the craft group were placed on the new grading rates from August, 1996, and paid accordingly, including new overtime rates.
Having considered all the information supplied, the Court is satisfied that this was not as recommended in LCR15658.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the same date of implementation of grading structure should be applied to the claimants, i.e., August, 1996.
Ongoing problems over the years of comparisons between memberships of different unions have been a notable feature of industrial relations in this Company, and have had the potential to be extremely damaging to the business and the workforce. The Court strongly recommends that this problem be addressed by all the parties involved, in a period of calm, using outside involvement if desired, with a view to reaching an agreement which would protect the business and avoid major industrial relations problems at key trading periods.
On the other issue before the Court, the payment of £1,000, the Court, having considered the arguments made by the parties, accepts the Company's method of application but recommends that additives held for firefighting and first-aid should not be deducted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
8th October, 1998______________________
F.B./D.T.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.