FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHN PLAYER & SONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Loss of promotional opportunities
BACKGROUND:
2. A Company/Union rationalisation programme, entitled Project 97, involved changes in work practices and a reduction in number employed at various levels, including Foremen and General Operatives. There were 17 Foremen, and this number is to reduce to 13. At present there are 14 Foremen, with one more to leave when the opportunity arises. (There was some dispute at the hearing as to whether the present number is 14 or 15). The Union's claim is that the reduction in the number of Foremen has resulted in a loss of promotional opportunities for the General Operatives, of which there are approximately 100.
Following discussions between the parties, the Company proposed 4 positions of Section Leader with a 15% allowance on the grades held by the appointees. Following 2 general meetings in 1997, the Company's proposal was rejected, . The Union is seeking the following:
(a) Guarantee of no further deletion of Supervisory posts without consultations with both SIPTU Sections.
(b)that the Section leaders allowance be increased to 20% with a review after 12 months.
(c)thatthe industrial grades group be compensated for the reduction in higher earning promotional opportunities.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences took place in July and October, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 29th of November, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of January, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. (1) The negative impact on the promotion opportunities for the workers concerned has not been taken into account.
(2) The current pay and conditions offered for the Section Leaders do not compensate for the loss of the Supervisor/Foremen posts, which fall into a much higher income and benefits package.
(3) Only a small number of general operatives will achieve the position of Section Leader. The opportunity for a more lucrative promotion has been lost to the group as a whole.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. (1) The 15% differential in the rate of pay for a Section Leader (in excess of £50 per week) far exceeded the sum which the Company initially intended to pay. It is also far in excess of the rates applicable to the Company's major competitors, where the chargehand allowance is paid for the performance of a similar role.
(2) With the overall reduction in numbers, promotional outlets at all levels have been curtailed. However, compensation for loss of such promotional opportunities has never been a feature of any agreement concluded with the Company.
(3) Despite reduction in absolute numbers at various levels, the ratio of Foremen to General Operatives is greater in 1999 (9.62%) than in 1990 (8.19%).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties.
The Court recommends that, in a final attempt to resolve this dispute, the Company should offer the immediate creation of four section leader posts on the terms previously offered. This proposal should be accepted by the Union in full settlement of all outstanding issues under the Project 97 reorganisation agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th February, 2000______________________
C.O'N/C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.