FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SERCOM SOLUTIONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - IRISH PRINT GROUP (SIPTU) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rate of pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for a £20 per week premium to be paid to 4 employees working in the Company's quality assurance department (QAD). The Union claims that the premium is because of the extra work being done in the QAD, and to bring the employees into line with fellow workers in MTS (a subsidiary of Sercom Solutions) who carry out similar work. The Company does not believe that there is any basis for the claim.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place in September, 2000. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of October, 2000, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court took place on the 6th of March, 2001, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is certain knowledge and training required before a person is competent to work in the QAD (the Union listed 11 skills that are required by the workers). The work involves all elements of a kit that is made up of manuals, CDs, loose leafs and cartons. This work is then inspected by quality controllers in MTS who are paid an extra £20 per week for carrying out this similar work.
2. There are various groups in the Company e.g. forklift drivers, who receive extra payment because of their skills. The workers concerned should also be rewarded for their life-long learning/knowledge.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim at the conciliation conference in September, 2000, was for extra duties being placed in the area within the previous 2 years. The duties cited in the Company's training manual have all been in place since 1996, thus making the claim invalid.
2. The nature of the work means that there are 'peaks and valleys', and the only variant is the day to day volume of work.
3. The claim is cost-increasing and is debarred under Partnership 2000 (when it was made) and under the PPF.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken into consideration all aspects of this case. The claim as submitted to the Court is a cost-increasing claim and is, accordingly, debarred under the terms of Partnership 2000 and the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, agreements to which both sides are committed. The Court, therefore, does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th March, 2001______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.