FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRAUN IRELAND LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Parity claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1997 agreement was reached between the parties on the introduction of cross-skilling working practice. The agreement included electricians, electronic technician, fitters, maintenance helpers, production technicians, toolmakers and utilities. A new rate of £23,293 per annum was introduced and a new lower rate of £18,000 per annum was established for all future multi-skilled personnel employed by the Company or personnel promoted from within. The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of approximately 12 technicians employed by the Company on the lower rate. It argues that the workers concerned perform the same work as the higher paid technicians.
The matter was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Proposals put forward by the Company at the second conference which included the introduction of 5 over 6 day working by the technicians on the lower rate were unacceptable to the Union. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of October, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th of January, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. At the time of the multi-skilling agreement, the majority of the workers concerned were employed by the Company on temporary contracts but were subsequently made permanent. This group are either time served craftsmen or have the required third level qualifications but due to their temporary status had no vote and no input into the discussions on cross-skilling.
2. It is the Union's contention that a group denied a vote have the right to seek full equality with their colleagues regarding pay. They perform the same tasks, to the same standards and are governed by the same conditions of employment.
3. The difference in the salary rates are widening. The incremental scale which existed prior to the agreement provided the opportunity to reach the maximum which is currently denied the workers. The Union considers that its claim, seeking progression to the rate of pay as agreed for multi-skilling duties, is reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company contends that for the following reasons there is no basis for acceding to a parity claim and increasing the current rate of pay as applies:
- The rate, now £20,303, is competitive, with approximately 60% of companies paying below this level and compares very favourably in the region being second out of 10 companies.
- The agreement to create this new rate was negotiated and freely entered into by agreement with the Union. Red-circling of rates of pay is a well established practice in Irish Industrial Relations and it was introduced in Braun in full consultation and agreement with the Union.
- The terms of the Partnership 2000 Agreement and Phase 1 of the Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness applied in full by the Company debars further cost increasing claims.
2. The Company accepts that two different rates of pay for people doing the same job may be a source of dissatisfaction. The rates of pay are now appropriate to the needs of the business.
3. The rates were established through a process of negotiation and agreement. The Company has presented a basis on which it is prepared to increase the rates but this has been rejected. The Court is requested to recommend that the Union either re-enter discussions to resolve the issue based on the Company's proposals or accept the results of a freely negotiated agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions recommend that the Union accept the Company offer to enter into discussions to resolve this dispute, based on the Company proposals.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th January, 2001______________________
FB/SHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.