FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH SUGAR PLC - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UCATT DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Craft differential.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1994, the Company entered into a review of its grading structure, with SIPTU, which represents general operatives in the Company. 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. In the new structure, 4 of the grades would be occupied with Grade 5 remaining unoccupied, to allow for future developments and changes. Rates of pay for the new grades were agreed following LCR15524 which was issued in May, 1997.
Subsequently, the Craft Unions submitted a claim for the restoration of the differential which previously existed between the top general operative grade (formerly Grade 8) and the base of the craft scale. The matter was the subject of LCR15658, arising from which the craftmens' pay was adjusted by reference to the new Grade 4 rate of pay.
The dispute concerns the Unions' claim, which is based on the recent appointment of a number of employees to Grade 5, which the Unions contend distorts their pay relationship between the craft scale and Grade 5 workers. Management rejects the claim. It argues that Grade 5 is a promotional grade and that following the agreement reached on general operatives' pay scales there was negotiation and agreement in relation to craft scales which were similarly structured and provided for a promotional rate.
The matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 18th of December, 1998. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 8th of February, 1999 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th of May, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In June, 1997 the Company sought to protect itself from possible future claims by including the following as a condition of its offer; "in the future if SIPTU employees go to Grade 5 this will have no effect on craft rates". This clause was unacceptable to the Unions and was withdrawn from all subsequent documents. The Company acknowledged that the craft workers would pursue this claim when it agreed to remove this condition (its letter of the 18th of June, 1997 refers).
2. The craft relativity always related to the highest general operative grade which is currently Grade 5. This relationship is set out as 98%-100% of the bottom of the craft grade scale.
3. There is no validity in the Company's claim that the comparator to Grade 5 is the craft technical grade.
4. There is a natural progression through the scales into Grade 5.
5. The craft technical grade requires substantial technical advancement in order to progress to this level. The workers concerned will have to complete and certify through 8 separate technical modules carrying National Council for Vocational Awads cerification. The case for this relativity adjustment is clearly established.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following the agreement on the general operatives' pay scales there was negotiation and agreement in relation to the craft scales. The craft scales were similarly structured and provided for a promotional (technicians) rate.
2. The craft Unions in their submission to the Labour Court on the 15th of September, 1997 agreed that the pay rates as outlined in the Labour Relations Commission's proposals of the 8th of September, 1997 were acceptable to the craft negotiating committee and would be deemed to fully address the differential claim. The submission was made in the knowledge that there was already a promotional grade (Grade 5) and a rate for this grade agreed.
3. The Unions' claim that a constant relativity exists between the bottom craft rate and the top non craft rate is not sustainable as in 1980 a Grade 15 was established which was at a higher rate than Grade 8 and there was no adjustment in the craft rates of pay.
4. The workers promoted to Grade 5 have taken on additional duties and responsibilities. The duties and responsibilities of the craft employees concerned have not changed.
5. The Company has honoured all its commitments under Partnership 2000 and this claim for increases in the rate of pay is precluded under Clause 6 of that Agreement.
6. Concession of this claim would cost the Company (inclusive of knock-on costs) in the region of £650,000 per annum. The Company strongly feels that this issue was fully dealt with in 1997 and concession of this claim would irreparably damage the competitive position of the Company in a spiral of further knock-on claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, both written and verbal, the Court is satisfied that at the time of the new craft rates agreement there was an understanding by the craft unions, of the application of the new promotional grade (Grade 5). The Court is satisfied that the craft relativity is with the new Grade 4 (which had previously been Grade 8). Therefore, the Court can see no grounds for recommending that the promotional grade should be used for relativity purposes with the craftsmen.
The Court does not recommend concession of the Unions' claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st June, 1999______________________
F.B./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.