FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLANBIA LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Parity claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim is on behalf of approximately 200 workers employed by the milk division of Glanbia at plants in Ballytore and Drogheda. The claim is for the extension to these workers of a £25 weekly bonus (current value £26.14) which is paid to employees in the Company's Snowcream plant in Waterford.
The Company was formed following the merger of Avonmore and Waterford Foods in September, 1997. In November, 1997, the Company announced rationalisation plans, which included reducing from 7/8 plants to 3 plants - Waterford, Drogheda and Ballytore. Negotiations to upscale the 3 plants took place at different times in 1998. Although the 3 plants came to different agreements, which should, in effect, have meant similar deals for all workers, the Unions believe that the £25 bonus awarded to the Waterford workers was additional, and should be extended to the other 2 plants.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 13th of March, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of April, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of June, 2000.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Part of the present problem is that the Company refused to meet jointly with the Unions, and reached different agreements with the 3 plants. The Unions only found out recently about the £25 bonus in Waterford. The problem is of the Company's own making.
2. The Company cannot expect workers who are performing the same duties as their Waterford colleagues to accept £25 per week less in their wages.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There were a number of different agreements reached with the 3 plants, including the payment of lump-sums in lieu of a reduction in wages and having to work shifts. The £25 bonus paid to the long-term workers in Waterford (i.e. those employed before the agreement) was part of a settlement to upscale the plant. New entrants did not, and do not, receive the bonus. The bonus was part of a deal which included a £2,800 lump sum. Workers in Drogheda and Ballytore received much greater lump-sums in their own agreements.
2. Despite a poor performance by the division in 1999, the Company has continued to honour its agreements with the various Unions. Earning capacity for the workers involved is in excess of £300 - £350 per week. Conceding the Unions' claim will only increase the competitive pressures on what is already a heavily burdened division.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Unions' claim is based on an alleged anomaly in pay between employees at the Company's plants in Drogheda/Ballytore and those at Snowcream, Waterford arising from the introduction of a £25 per week bonus at the latter plant. In so far as there is a disparity in rates between the plants, this arose from the conclusion of separate agreements covering Drogheda, Ballytore and Snowcream. While the agreements covering Drogheda and Ballytore did not provide for the £25 bonus, they did provide for higher lump-sum payments, which would have to be taken into account in assessing any overall difference in the value of each agreement.
Furthermore, the £25 bonus is only payable to employees at Snowcream who commenced employment prior to the conclusion of the agreement. Therefore, the only fair comparison which can be drawn is between pre-agreement employees in Drogheda/Ballytore and pre-agreement employees at Snowcream. The Unions have, however, made it clear that any solution which involves a differentiation between employees based on their date of commencement (as is the case in Snowcream) would be unacceptable.
Taking account of all of the circumstances of this case, the Court considers the claim for payment of the £25 bonus to all employees at the two plants concerned to be unjustified, having regard to the terms of the Snowcream agreement and that, having regard to the financial circumstances of the Company, its concession would be unsustainable.
The Court notes that the parties have agreed to enter into centralised negotiations on a range of issues in respect of all three plants. It recommends that any anomaly which may exist be discussed in the course of these negotiations. In so doing, regard should be had to (a) the enhanced lump-sums paid at Drogheda and Ballytore, which will have the effect of offsetting the value of the £25 payment over a period of approximately three years , and (b) the limited application of the bonus at Snowcream to those whose employment commenced before the agreement was concluded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th August, 2000______________________
con/conDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.