FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH CEMENT LTD - AND - MANUFACTURING, SCIENCE, FINANCE AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Annualised hours.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Unions are seeking the application of an annualised hours agreement for clerical grades similar to that negotiated for the general operative grade (G.O.). The agreement for the G.O. grade provided for lead-in payments, an annual skills allowance (pensionable) and a selection of overtime bands (non-pensionable). The Unions claim that the clerical grades had higher productivity since 1988 and it was only reasonable to expect that the annualised hours agreement would also apply to them. Consideration would be given to other cost saving measures where necessary.
Management stated that separate deals were concluded with G.O.'s, Supervisors and some clerical staff. The Supervisor's deal involved the inclusion of some overtime payments in pensionable salary. Both deals had resulted in reduced payroll costs and staff numbers. The application of the G.O. deal to the clerical grades would not deliver either payroll reductions or staff reductions. Management are prepared, however, to offer the supervisor's deal to the clerical grades.
The Unions rejected management's proposals.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 27th of January, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th of February, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 20th of June, 2000 (the earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions want the annualised hours agreement for General Operatives applied to the clerical grades.
2. The clerical grades have given higher productivity since 1988. The Company should recognise this by treating them in the same manner as members of other Unions in the Company.
3. The staff concerned are being disadvantaged through the application of more favourable conditions of employment in respect of overtime to other workers in the Company.
4. The Unions believe that the Company is discriminating against the clerical staff because the majority of the members are female. The Unions want an end to this discrimination.
5. If there is no satisfactory conclusion to this claim it will lead to conflict between the parties.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The application of the General Operative agreement to the clerical grades would not deliver the necessary payroll reductions or staff reductions.
2. The Company is prepared to apply the deal given to the supervisors to the clerical grades.
3. Concession of the claim would lead to follow-on claims for the Company.
4. There are no relativities between clerical staff and other employees. Historically, their pay levels were determined separately.
5. The rates of pay of this group of workers is in the upper quartile of clerical employments.
6. The claim is cost increasing with no possible offsets. As such it is precluded by Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully all aspects of this dispute, as presented in written and oral submissions by the parties.
The deal done with some other groups in Irish Cement combines two approaches. These include an annualised hours type agreement whereby employees commit to a certain number of overtime hours when required, up to agreed maxima, in return for enhanced salary levels, and also a productivity deal. This latter involved buy-outs of various supplements and practices, and reduced manning, along with acceptance of contracting. The overall deal was based on resulting savings for the Company, which at the least fully paid for its costs.
A separate deal was done with supervisors and some of the clerical staff to include their varied overtime in individually enhanced salaries, again with the commitment to work this same overtime as part of normal working.
The Court considers that the Company's offer to deal similarly with the remaining clerical staff, i.e. enhanced fixed salary according to the overtime pattern involved, would be the most appropriate to take account of this claim.
In addition to this, one of the Unions indicated that its members could offer future savings arrangements to the Company on a productivity basis, in return for other aspects of the scheme applying to the other Union.
Although the Company could not envisage such possible savings from this group, the Court recommends that the parties should discuss the possibility of any such cost-offsetting deal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th July, 2000______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.