FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KENDALL COMPANY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. Increase in basic rates and service pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, formerly Sherwood Medical, is a subsidiary of Tyco International and is based in Tullamore. It manufactures a range of medical devices for world-wide distribution and employs 650 workers in Tullamore.
The Union's claim is as follows, and was made on the 2nd of July, 1999:
(a) An increase in basic grade 1 rate from £175 to £200 per week.
(b) Reflection of this on all premia and grade rates to preserve existing differentials.
(c) Introduction of service pay as follows:
£5 per week after 5 years
£10 per week after 10 years
£15 per week after 15 years
Since February, 1997, a gain sharing proposal was agreed following Labour Court Recommendation (LCR) 16108 which issued in March, 1999, in an effort to increase the efficiency level from 74%. The Union claims that the efficiency level is now 80%. The Company responded to the Union claim with an offer on the 8th of September as follows:
The current rate of £175 to be increased by £10 (front end loaded) from the 1st of October, 1999, a further £3 to be added on the achievement of 87% efficiency maintained for 6 weeks.
No offer on service pay.
Gainsharing to be discontinued
Next 1% due under Partnership 2000 to be included in the offer
The offer was rejected by the Union and the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on 22nd of September, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of October, 1999, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of November, 1999.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's pay rates are substantially out of line within the industry. The Company has recognised this by agreeing to enter into discussions on an increase.
2. When the 87% efficiency is achieved, it is estimated that the value of same is £30.75. As the workers have already achieved an increase from 74% to 80%, then £15 is due to them. Any increase above 80% should also be paid for e.g. £5 at 82%.
3. It is imperative to maintain a joint problem-solving role under chapter 9 of Partnership 2000. However, the Company does not seem interested in this approach.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim represents a direct increase of 14% across all the general operative rates, approximately £650,000 per annum.
2. The gainsharing scheme is to be discontinued because it did not yield the desired results for either party.
3. The service pay is not up for negotiation as the Company is results driven and does not pay for service.
4. The Company can only pay an increase if there is a corresponding increase in efficiency. The Company's offer would bring wages up to £185 per week, which is in line with a local average of £186 per week.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the arguments made, recommends that the Company offer be improved as follows:
1.Basic Pay
A £15 increase to be applied to basic pay, with effect from 1st of October, 1999.
Further payments to be applied as follows:
£3.50 at levels of 82%
£3.50 at levels of 85%
£3.00 at levels of 87%
The above levels having been reached and maintained for 6 weeks.
2.Partnership 2000
The Court accepts the Union arguments that the 1% due under Partnership 2000 should be paid separately
Given the competitive nature of the business and the good industrial relations record in the Company, the Court strongly recommends that the parties work closely together to maintain a climate that enables all involved to contribute to the ongoing success of the business.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
22nd November, 1999.______________________
CON/BCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.