FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CADBURY IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION BUILDING AND ALLIED TRADES UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a comprehensive agreement - Vision 2000 - to the Carpenter and Painter Group.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has been negotiating with its employees on the introduction of its comprehensive plan - Vision 2000 - which provides for cost-reductions and improved efficiencies by developing new work methods. It had secured agreement with the Crafts Group in June, 1998 and with the Trades Helpers in November, 1998. The proposals in relation to the Production Group were the subject of a Labour Court Recommendation (LCR16124 refers). The Company employs three painters and three carpenters. Management made a proposal to the Unions in respect of these workers under Vision 2000 (details supplied to the Court). The new pay rates proposed for annualised hours provided for £29,196 with effect from the 25th of January, 1999. This rate includes the first three phases of Partnership 2000 and provides for a basic of £18,995.95 but does not include service pay. The number of hours worked would be 39 involving a five day rota covering seven days - 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m. The Unions rejected the proposals and are claiming the payment of wages in line with the Comprehensive Agreement for all Crafts, 1979, payment of the appropriate Shift Differential under the 1979 agreement and maintaining all payments equally to carpenters and painters as applicable in Vision 2000 conceded to fitters and electricians. Management rejected the Unions claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 13th and 19th of April, 1999. Agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 7th of May, 1999. A Court hearing was held on the 18th of June, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Up to and until the present proposals parity existed in relation to pay and conditions between all crafts as laid down in the Comprehensive Agreement of 1979. The proposed changes in relation to hours worked and shift pattern are significant and the Company's offer to the painters/carpenters is lower than that offered to the craft group. The Unions maintain that there are two options of resolving the present impasse.
- (1) Day working at the differential of the two shift pay (as per the 1979 Comprehensive Agreement), with annualised hours the same as the other craftsmen (£30,523 with effect from the 25th of January, 1999).
(2) A. Payment of shift rate appropriate to the 15 day rota or B. 10 day rota as set out in the 1979 Agreement with a 7.2% differential over the two shift pay structures.
3. Should the Court see merit in recommending that the workers concerned continue day work the Unions expect the new differential to be maintained. The Company's proposed £30,523 for day work (4 fitters - 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.) is the expectation by the Unions for the carpenters/painters thus maintaining parity established over twenty years by custom and practice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The basic craft rate has not been disturbed. In formulating the rate of pay for painters and carpenters a composite rate of pay was arrived at which took account of the earning levels within the groups incorporating the most suitable shift pattern to meet the requirements of the business. This is no different to the approach taken by the Company in formulating its proposals for the fitters and electrical group. In arriving at a pay structure for fitters/electricians the offer made and accepted did not represent additional cost to the Company. There was also a reduction in numbers and increased production. All painters and carpenters will, under the Company's proposals, be earning more than they were previously and have to work only 39 hours per week.
2. While the issue of a day rate may have been discussed in negotiations with the fitters/electricians there is in fact no day rate for that group The Unions sought that the shift differential with the new two-shift fitters/electricians rate should be restored. The Company is not aware of any fixed shift differential arrangement, even if there was one it is not comparing like with like. The new rates for fitters/electricians for various shifts are composite rates based on previous overall earnings for those groups. The differential parity arguments being put forward by
the Unions on behalf of the workers concerned are the same in principle as put
forward by the production unions in LCR16124. The Court in relation to production
workers claim that "the rate agreed in respect for annualised hours worked by the craft workers was determined by compositing elements of their pay previously payable but separately classified under the old arrangements and in the case of production grades those separate elements remain applicable. For that reason the composite rate for annualised hours cannot be fairly equated with the basic pay as that term was used in the agreement on pay differentials .......".
3. Pension Contribution Agreement
Prior to 1991 each individual paid a 7% contribution based on their own pensionable earnings. The Pension Scheme is a Defined Benefit Scheme which requires the Company to pay its contribution based on the funding required as determined by actuarial review. In 1991 it was accepted that fitters, electricians, painters and carpenters as a group would contribute at a rate of 7% of the group average pensionable earnings. This average increased in line with general wage increases. Arising out of the agreement with fitters and electricians a new average figure was arrived at based on the average pensionable earnings for these two groups. In the new composite pay arrangement for fitters/electricians the movement of many fitters and electricians from lower paying shifts to higher paying shifts (to suit the requirements of the business) has resulted in a higher average contributory rate for fitters and electricians. The claim by painters and carpenters, is to be allowed to contribute at this new higher contributory rate. The Company cannot accede to this claim for the reason that other groups (or individuals) could look for the same type of arrangement which would result in a significant increase in costs for the Company in terms of its contribution towards the Pension Scheme.
If painters and carpenters or any individuals, whether in groups or otherwise, wish to contribute more than the normal 7% of their pensionable earnings, they may do so through Additional Voluntary Contributions on a tax effective basis subject to the normal revenue limit of 15% of their earnings each year.
4. Against the background of where the Company is as a business and the challenges it faces on the competitive side its approach to the painters and carpenters is reasonable. The approach has been the very same as that taken with fitters/electricians in establishing a composite rate, and in fact may be argued to be
more reasonable in that the proposals represent an increased cost to the Company whereas the fitter/electricians arrangement represented no increased cost.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the basis that the BATU and SIPTU are prepared to concede the full range of changes required by the Company in respect of the two trades associated with this claim, the Court recommends that carpenters and painters be paid the same composite rate as other craft workers.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd July, 1999______________________
T.O'D./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.