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. Salary review
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company announced re-organisation proposals - Project 97 - which involved a reduction in the number of foremen from 17 to 13, and placing the foremen on personalised salaries. The proposals also entailed the discontinuance of collective negotiations on pay, and provided for salary reviews to be conducted annually in October. The Union claims that the October reviews were to take account of the following:
(a) Any local agreements reached in factory in the preceding 12 months.
(b) General wage increases (e.g. P.2000) implemented in the preceding 12 month
(c) Volume of overtime worked in preceding period (in the case of October 1998 Review, the period since May 1998)
(d) Overall performance of the Company in the preceding 12 months.
(e) Supervisors not to be disadvantaged in any way by any agreements reached in the factory.
Following discussions on the personal salaries, the Company agreed to bring forward 3% from the October review, with effect from the 1st of May, 1998. The Company also agreed to a
general increase of 2.25% in October, 1998. The Union's claim is that the foremen believed that, as well as the total of 5.25% received, they would also receive "a little bit more". The Company's view is that the 2.25% paid in October was the salary review as had been previously agreed.
Specifically, the Union's claim is that management implement the October reviews for 1998 and 1999 (and all subsequent reviews as per points (a) to (e) above. There are 11 foremen involved in the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relation Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the 12th of February, 1999. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 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. A clear agreement was reached in May, 1998, which provided for an October pay review, based on the criteria detailed in points (a) to (e).
2. The October 1998 review was not implemented at all, and the October, 1999 review only gave the foremen what they would have received under Partnership 2000.
3. There is no basis in the management claim that the October 1998 review was pre-negotiated in May and set at 2.25%. The foremen understood that a "lead-in" payment in 2 phases, i.e. 3% and 2.25% was what was agreed.
4. The Company has performed very successfully with the re-organised supervisory staff. However, overtime levels have increased since the introduction of personal salaries.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Pensionable salaries for the 11 workers concerned rose by 30.86%, following the move to personal salaries. Six of the 11 workers also received additional increases varying from £1,000 to £2,000. In addition, personal salaries now count for pension calculation purposes.
2. A common increase for all foremen had been negotiated and agreed in advance (April/May, 1998). The first annual review in October, 1998 was in line with the terms of Partnership 2000.
3. The 5.25% increase granted in 2 phases between May and October, 1998, coupled with the individual salaries, represents a fair and equitable system of reward.
RECOMMENDATION:
On balance, the Court accepts that the increase in pay brought forward to May, 1998, was in lieu of the anticipated October review. The Court accepts that this was not made sufficiently clear in the negotiations. Both parties must take some responsibility for the resultant misunderstanding.
For this reason, and having regard to the fact that the claimants are now covered by a personal salary agreement which will not involve collective bargaining in the future, the Court recommends that each of the claimants receive an ex-gratia payment of £500 in full settlement of their claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd March, 2000.______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.