FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PROGRESSIVE GENETICS CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. (1) Pay scales; (2) Annual leave.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Society took over the role and function of the Dublin District Milk Board (DDMB) in 1995. The DDMB was a public services company and a number of staff returned to the Civil Service before the takeover. These staff members were replaced by new recruits and it is they who are involved in the dispute.
In early 1996, the pay scale for new recruits ranged between £6,500 - £7,500 per annum. In 1997, the Society decided to review grades and pay scales, and introduced three clerical grades. The dispute concerns 7/8 workers. It initially involved 9/10 - 5 on Grade 1, 4 on Grade 2 and, the Society claims, 1 worker on Grade 3. The Union's case is that the workers concerned are carrying out duties which were previously graded and paid at HEO level but now pay considerably less. In 1997, the Society claims that the grades and pay scales were as follows:-
Grade 1 - £9,100 to a maximum of £11,605
Grade 2 - £10,225to a maximum of £12,730
Grade 3 - £11,247to a maximum of £13,752
The Union is seeking an independent study to draw up agreed pay scales for the workers concerned.
In the second issue, the Union wants the annual leave level of 20 days increased to 23 days per annum.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 16th of November, 1998. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of January, 1999 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of March, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All the workers are on Grade 1 or Grade 2 and, until very recently, were on the minimum point of the pay scale. The Union is not aware of a worker on Grade 3.
2. There were no job descriptions attached to the grades for the new employees. Workers had extra duties assigned to them with no additional remuneration.
3. The pay levels are not justified by reference to any comparable model in the private or public sector. Increments are not guaranteed.
4. The high staff turnover reflects the workers' lack of confidence in the Society. The Society's claim that it is losing money has never been substantiated.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Three of the original ten workers have been regraded and there is one worker on Grade 3.
2. There has been an overall decline in the market since the Society took over the assets of the former DDMB. There are now a number of competitor companies where before there were none.
3. The new grading structure resulted in the workers receiving increases of between £900 to £2,000 per annum. It reflects payments available in similar grades in comparable companies (details supplied to the Court).
4. All the workers have the potential to reach the maximum of their scale.
5. The Society grants 20 days annual leave. Both of the Union's claims are precluded under Partnership 2000 as they are cost-increasing.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court recommends that further discussions should take place between the Union and the Company on the appropriate pay structure for the workers concerned, with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission if necessary.
In these discussions, regard should be had to:-
1. The rates of pay applicable to workers engaged in similar
duties in comparable employments.
2. The economic and commercial circumstances of the employment.
3. The knowledge, experience and skill requirements of the posts.
The Union's claim regarding annual leave entitlements should also be addressed in these discussions.
Should the parties fail to reach agreement by the 1st of June, 1999, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th March, 1999______________________
C.O'N./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.