FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WESSEL CABLE (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (a) An increase in basic pay for past productivity and (b) Inclusion of shift pay in pensionable salary.
BACKGROUND:
2. The plant in Longford was established in 1982 and manufactures telephone cable mainly for Telecom Eireann. It is owned by the multinational company ABB and has a sister plant, Wessel Industries, in Dublin. There are 61 workers involved in both claims.
The two claims were first served on the Company in late 1996. In September, 1997, the Union sought a gainsharing scheme to replace the productivity deals which the Company had operated in the past. (The Company claims that the Union is now seeking both a productivity deal and a gainsharing scheme.) Failing agreement on these issues, the dispute was referred to an Arbitrator and he issued his recommendation in November, 1997, (details supplied to the Court). These recommendations were rejected by the workers and the dispute was then referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 16th of June, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of August, 1998, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of December, 1998, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The issue of productivity was the subject of Labour Court recommendation No. 12254 in 1989. This productivity was conceded by the Company and payment was made to the workers. However, productivity was conceded during the P.C.W. which still has to be paid for.
2. Employees in the Dublin plant have the shift premium included in the pensionable salary. The same should apply to the Longford workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not prepared to accept a position whereby the Union is seeking a productivity deal and the introduction of gainsharing. The Company will consider a holistic approach to the Union's claims. All past productivities have been accounted for.
2. The cost to the Company, if it conceded the issue of the shift premium, would be approximately £19,000. This, combined with the Union's claims for gainsharing and past productivity, is more than the Company can afford.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions made, the Court believes that, based on the information provided, the issue of past productivity is not appropriate for negotiations at this point. Productivity has been paid for in the past. There is no justification at this point to substantiate any further payments.
The Court subscribes to the view that the proposal put forward by the Arbitrator in his report is the best way forward in this dispute. The Court believes that gainsharing is in both parties interest but considers that this issue has not been fully discussed and finalised. The parties should, as a matter of urgency, meet to discuss the issue of gainsharing in line with the proposal put forward by the Arbitrator.
The Court further recommends that the Company should concede the claim for the inclusion of shift premium in both pension contributions and in pension benefits with effect from the conclusion and agreement of the above discussions.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th January, 1999______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.