FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HITECH (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Increase to rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. Hitech Electronics develops and manufactures commercial thick film hybrid circuits and multi-chip modules. It employs 66 people at its location in Mountbellow, County Galway. The dispute concerns the Union's claim for an increase in basic pay. Local level discussions failed to resolve the issue and the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place in April, 2000 following which further local discussions took place at which the Company put forward the following proposals:-
- Implementation of the Minimum Wage plus the first phase of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness with effect from the 1st of April, 2000.
- Shift premium to be excluded from the Minimum Wage calculations.
- £5 per week in addition the second phase of the PPF from the 1st of April, 2001.
- A review of all pay scales in March, 2001.
- Long service bonus of £250 per year payable every six months to all employees with over 10 years service, the first payment to be in April, 2000.
The workers rejected the proposals. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th of May, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of June, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The question of basic pay has been ongoing for over 12 months. While changes in personnel are understandable, this has been used by management to delay and overturn previous progress made.
2. The Company has increased orders and expects increased production from its workforce without any attempt to address the long outstanding pay claim.
3. Management has conceded that there is a difficulty recruiting and retaining staff. The Company's rates of pay are seriously out of line with industry in the country generally and the implementation of a decent basic wage would help address these staff problems.
4. The Union is seeking the following:
(a) The implementation of the National Minimum Wage.
(b) An increase of £40 per week.
(c) Payment of all phases of the PPF.
(d) Perfect attendance bonus.
(e) Introduction of a production bonus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company currently faces major competition from Eastern Europe and as a result margins are steadily dropping. In the year ending May, 2000 it expects to record substantial losses.
2. The Company has made every effort to resolve this issue and considers its offer of the 10th of April, 2000 which was recommended for acceptance by the Union to be generous in the circumstances. It has honoured the terms of Partnership 2000 in full including the 2% local bargaining clause.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered all aspects of this case the Court recommends that the offer made by the Company on 10th April, 2000 and proposed by the conciliation officer for ballot is a fair and reasonable offer under the circumstances and should be accepted by the members involved, with one amendment (an adjustment on service pay from £250 to £300 per year).
Accordingly the Court recommends the following: -
- An increase of £12.95 on the lowest point to bring it in line with the National Minimum Wage of £171.60 from 1st April 2000,
- 5.5% increase in the rate of pay or a minimum of £12.00 in line with phase 1 of PPF from 1st April 2000,
- 5.5% increase in the rate of pay or a minimum of £11.00 in line with phase 2 of PPF from 1st April 2001,
- £5.00 increase in the rate of pay from 1st April 2001,
- payment of the appropriate shift premium,
- payment of an increase in service pay for employees with over 10 years service to £300.00 per year payable twice yearly; the first payment to be made in April 2000,
- a review of all pay scales in March 2001.
In addition, the Court recommends that the parties should explore the possibility of introducing an individual or group productivity bonus scheme, which should be structured to provide for additional payments relative to increases in output. Discussion should commence without delay on the feasibility of introducing such a scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th August, 2000______________________
FB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.