FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KOSTAL (IRELAND) LIMITED (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. (i) "Pay Path"
(ii) Certified Leave
(iii) Technicians' Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture/assembly of electronic components for the European automotive industry. It employs in excess of 1000 workers at its west-Limerick facilities. The dispute concerns three issues, as follows:-
(i)PAY PATH:
Since April, 1999, all but 23 of the Company's workforce are paid by means of credit-transfer and the Company wishes to apply this method of payment to all staff. The 23 workers in question wish to retain the right to be paid by means of weekly cheque. At a conciliation conference, under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, the payment to each worker of a 'premium' payment of £500 was proposed in order to settle the issue. This was unacceptable to the Union.
(ii)CERTIFIED SICK-LEAVE:
The dispute concerns the interpretation of Clause 7.1 of the Company/Union agreement in relation to the use of medical certificates to cover absence from work, which states:-
7.1. Absence from work for any of the following reasons will be considered authorised absence:-
(a) Approved Holidays.
(b) Certified Sickness.
(c) Approved Compassionate Leave.
(d) Approved business trip or outside training course.
(e) Special leave approved in advance by Department Manager.
The Union is of the view that the production of a medical certificate should "protect" the employee in question from any possible disciplinary action in respect of an absence, a position that is not accepted by the Company. Following conciliation on the matter, an in-depth analysis of the Company's absenteeism problem was carried out with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission's Advisory Service. Agreement was not, however, subsequently, reached by the parties.
(iii)TECHNICIAN'S PAY:
This matter concerns approximately 75 workers employed as Maintenance Technicians, Maintenance Specialists, Material Handlers and in the Quality Control Department. The Union claims that the current performance related pay (PRP) system is not equitable and it is seeking the introduction of an incremented pay system and the re-alignment of those concerned on par with other grades, with the disputed grades going to the maximum of their respective scales. The Company's position is that the system in operation which has been amended, in April, 1995, and January, 1999, was an agreed one and is catering for individuals operating across all levels of experience. Notwithstanding that, the Company made a set of proposals, locally, in relation to PRP, which were made available to the Court during the course of its investigation. The Union's position on the new proposals was, however, that they did not fully address the claim.
The three issues in dispute were the subject of various conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission, following which agreement was not reached. The disputes were referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, on the 22nd April, 1999. The Court commenced its investigation at a hearing which commenced, in Limerick, on the 24th of August, 1999 and which concluded, also in Limerick, on the 1st of March, 2000. Both parties made written submissions to the Court, which were expanded upon during the course of the Court's investigation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends as follows in relation to each of the issues in dispute:-
Introduction of Pay Path.
The Court recommends that Pay Path be introduced for all staff not currently availing of this facility. The £500, proposed by the Industrial Relations Officer, as a once-off lump sum payment to each employee currently paid by cheque, should be increased to £750.
Sick-pay.
The Court accepts that incidents of certified sick-leave could not, in itself, give rise to disciplinary proceedings. This could not, however, prevent the Company from investigating the likelihood of employees on long-term sick-leave being in a position to fulfil their contract of employment in the future.
In that regard, the Court notes the Company's assurance that it would only adopt such a course in circumstances in which it has grounds for believing that an employee's contract of employment has become frustrated. In such circumstances any investigation or enquiries made by the Company should not be regarded as disciplinary in nature.
Technicians' Pay.
The Court notes that the Company has accepted that problems exist with the current Performance Appraisal Scheme. The Court recommends that the proposals for a revised scheme put forward prior to the hearing, should now be put in place. This system should be jointly monitored by the parties and, if necessary, reviewed after it has been in operation for 12 months. The Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim for a general pay increase for this category.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th March, 2000______________________
MK/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.