FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SERCOM SOLUTIONS (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH PRINTING FEDERATION) - AND - GRAPHICAL, PAPER AND MEDIA UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Increase in pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company services the manufacturing requirements of computer software and hardware companies. It employs approximately 400 people at its plant in Clondalkin, South County Dublin.
Prior to August 1999, the Union submitted a claim for a pay increase on behalf of three employees who work as Quality Controllers. Their basic pay is £204.32 per week and the claim is for an increase of £40 per week, backdated to the 1st week of October, 1999. The Company rejects the claim. The issue was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on the 25th of January, 2000. As agreement was not possible, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th of March, 2000 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 28th of April, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three claimants have worked in the platemaking department for a number of years and have gained wide experience of the proofing and plate inspection tasks required of them. They must carefully inspect the plates as any mistakes would be costly to the Company in terms of time lost, waste of paper and even a loss of customer confidence.
2. The claimants are paid the transport/general worker rate because there is no grade or proper category that can be applied under the Registered Employment Agreement. However, this rate is usually paid to workers who do not have a specific task and in the main carry out subordinate duties. The other staff in the plateroom earn more than the minimum rate of £236.07.
3. The claimants do not seek to breach the Partnership 2000 Agreement, but ask that they receive the proper entitlement and recognition for the important work that they carry out. The cost of meeting their claim would be £6,240 gross per year, in a company whose profits are in the tens of millions of pounds.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is a wage claim and is, therefore, barred under Partnership 2000.
2. The Company attempted to address the claim at local level by putting forward proposals for suggested additional duties in exchange for a wage adjustment. These proposals were rejected.
3. The Company is not asking the Court to adjudicate on the concept or value of the suggested duties as the claim is barred under Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the detail of the submissions made by both parties to this case, and to the subsequent letters received from each side, following an opportunity given to them by the Court to reconsider their respective positions. As no progress was made, the Court now issues the following recommendation.
The Court is satisfied that the claim for an increase in pay is barred under the agreed terms of Partnership 2000. The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th May, 2000______________________
D.G./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.