FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STAFFORD-MILLER IRELAND LIMITED - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Dispute concerning elimination of Supervisory position and pay of two new posts.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures dental care products at its plant in Dungarvan, Co. Waterford. Until recently the staffing structure in the Company's warehouse consisted of Operators, a Warehouse Supervisor, and a Warehouse Manager. Following the departure of the Warehouse Manager, the Company re-organised its warehouse in March, 2000. The Company decided not to fill the vacancy of Warehouse Manager and instead gave a management position as Warehouse Controller to the incumbent Warehouse Supervisor, who accepted the position. The Company then advertised two senior Warehouse Operator positions and advised that these posts would carry a differential of 10%. The Union claimed that the Company should restore the Warehouse Supervisor position. It subsequently modified its claim that the two new positions be allocated a new designation and carry a differential of 50% of the difference between the Warehouse Operator and the Supervisor's rate on an ongoing basis. The Company rejected the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in May and June, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 19th of July, 2000. A Court hearing was held in Waterford on the 22nd of September, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is aggrieved at the Company's decision which was taken without consultation. However, it was prepared to accept the following solution which was discussed at conciliation.
(i) That the two new positions be designated as 'Lead Operator' positions.
(ii) That the Union members, with immediate effect, work these two Lead Operator posts for six months, following which they will be classified as permanent in these positions.
(iii) At that stage the I.P.C. will evaluate the positions which will carry an initial differential of 10% without prejudice and the I.P.C. recommendation which will apply retrospectively to the commencement date, will be final and binding on both parties.
2. Despite the fact that Management unilaterally dispensed with a Union Supervisory position, the Union has made every effort possible to resolve a dispute that need never have arisen. The Union's preferred settlement is a return to the status quo i.e. restore the Supervisory position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company was agreeable to an IPC evaluation of the two posts (it was on site at the time doing other job evaluations) but it had to be done immediately and the Company was opposed to any retrospection. This was rejected by the Union.
2. The proposals for the warehouse must be seen in the context of an overall restructuring, the workers affected would be amongst the highest paid in the plant.
3. The Company proposal provides benefits for all involved and no one sustains a loss.
4. The IPC has now completed its involvement in the plant. The Union's refusal to take up the initial proposal discussed at conciliation was unreasonable. To re-involve the IPC at this stage would be extremely expensive and would not be helpful in the overall context.
5. While the Union contends that the Warehouse Supervisor post is a Union one, the Company maintains that whether positions are unionised or not is not the major issue. According to the relevant section of the Company/Union agreement, it could be argued that a supervisory position is specifically excluded from the influence of the agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered fully the written and oral submissions presented to it in connection with this case.
The Court must deal with the position as it now finds it, with no interim arrangement or progress on the particular dispute since the Warehouse re-organisation was carried out six months earlier, and with the I.P.C. investigations and report now concluded.
In framing it's recommendation, the Court is taking account of the parties own proposals, the perceived affects of the re-organisation changes made, and the Company's intention to adopt the approach of the I.P.C. report.
As a solution to this dispute the Court recommends that the new positions be further detailed by the parties to incorporate any likely extended roles, and that they be paid at the level of Senior Process Operator. These positions are to be regarded as red-circled, and may not be used as a basis for any future claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th October, 2000______________________
TOD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.