FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MERCK, SHARP & DOHME (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Entry level of pay for craft workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals at Ballydine, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. The dispute concerns 54 maintenance technicians employed at the plant. The Company/Union agreement provides for a pay scale with increments as follows: Start rate; 6 months rate; 1 year rate; 2 year and 3 year rates. A service element of £1.50 applies after 5 years service. Since 1996, because of an expansion of its operations, the Company employed an additional 16 technicians who were paid at a point on the scale based on their qualifications and experience. The Union claimed that the Company was in breach of the Company/Union agreement by employing these workers at different starting rates and ignoring the incremental scale. The Company rejected the claim stating that the agreement did not preclude it from paying new technicians above the start point of the scale, and that it was necessary for the Company to do so in order to attract suitable workers. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in February and July, 2000, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 21st August. 2000. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on the 22nd September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company/Union agreement does not have any provision for entry at varying points on the scale. The craft pay rates are time based from a start rate through progression to a 5 year rate. The argument that the Company paid above the minimum point on the incremental scale is not in itself an issue, but that the Company breached the agreement, which is open to re-negotiation at any time, without proper consultation between the parties.
2. Some of the previous hires (recruited in 1996, 1997 and 1998) who have been training the new technicians are earning less money than the workers they are training. The existing long serving technicians feel very insulted at their treatment by the Company in this situation.
3. The Union is seeking that the rates of all technicians be adjusted in accordance with the new start rate i.e. the rate at which the most recent recruits were hired. The three year rate should now be set as the start rate and the progression through the five years adjusted accordingly.
4. The Court has recognised the problems that the claimants are facing in that a similar situation regarding recruitment, the starting rate of pay and the upholding of agreements were dealt with by the Court in the case of Irish Life and Permanent V MSF where an increase of 8% was awarded for a change in the starting rates. (LCR16534 refers).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company will always seek to hire the best workers.
2. Because of the technical nature of the work involved it is policy to employ workers with a number of years post apprenticeship experience and this must be reflected in the pay rate.
3. In the current market environment, as the country approaches full employment, it is inevitable that pay rates will converge and that technicians with a number of years working experience will be on higher pay rates than the Company's start rate. In order to hire such employees, it is necessary to pay them at a higher entry rate.
4. The Company/Union Agreement does not preclude payment above the start rate for new employees. ('Recruitment Section' of the Company/Union Agreement refers).
5. None of the Company's technicians suffered any loss arising from the Company's hiring policy.
6. The Company has offered to review any perceived inequities in the pay rates of the more recent new hires as part of discussions to resolve this dispute.
7. Assimilation onto pay points in this manner is common practice in industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue referred to the Court is the entry rate for craftsmen.
The Court has considered all aspects of this case and cannot accept that there is any basis for the extension of the existing scale from the third year base.
As the Company recruited craftsmen in 1999 at a higher rate than the entry rate and did not seek agreement with the Union to do so, anomalies have been created in the system. The Company's approach in 1999, while not in breach of the agreement, has led to perceived unfairness on the part of some of those hired before 1999. It was pointed out to the Court that craftsmen have been employed between 1996 and 1999 at rates less than those recruited in 1999.
Both the Company and the Union have stated that they are prepared to discuss the individual inequities of those recruited between 1996 and 1999. Therefore, the Court recommends that these should be addressed without delay.
The Court further recommends that discussions should take place between the parties on a recruitment basis for future crafts people.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5 October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.