FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOLLISTER ULC - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. (1) Bonus difference between TEEU and SIPTU and (2) Service pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a privately owned U.S. multinational. It manufactures medical device products. It employs approximately 275 staff at its Irish subsidiary located at Ballina, Co. Mayo.
During 1999 and 2000 separate negotiations took place between the Company and two Unions, the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union and Services Industrial Professional Technical Union to increase the competitiveness of the Company.
In July, 2000, agreement was reached with the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union on a range of work practices which included annualised hours. The agreement eliminated bonus payments and service pay was incorporated into the basic pay. A different agreement was reached with the Services Industrial Professional Technical Union.
The dispute before the Court is on behalf of 30 staff who are members of the Technical, Engineering and Electrical Union for the same bonus payments and service pay that applies to members of the Services Industrial Professional Technical Union.
The Union concerned states that there was a clear understanding that the bonus pay and service pay elements of the agreement would be identical for both Unions.
The Company states that the Union concerned was given every opportunity to join with the other Union in the negotiations but insisted on negotiating its own deal.
The dispute could not be resolved locally and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 26th of June, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th of July, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of September, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. During the negotiations there was a clear understanding that the bonus pay arrangements and service pay elements of the agreement would be identical for both Unions.
2. It is a long established practice in the manufacturing industry that fringe benefits enjoyed by the process workers are passed onto the craftworkers.
3. The workers concerned should not be treated less favourably than their colleagues in the Services Industrial Professional Technical Union regarding bonus payments and service pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. It was never indicated that both deals would be the same.
2. The Union concerned was given every opportunity to join with the other Union in the negotiations but insisted on negotiating its own deal.
3. The group concerned benefited more substantially than the other group due to the application of the annualised hours formula.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the agreement entered into between the parties on the introduction of annualised hours was a final agreement and was not conditional on the outcome of negotiations with any other group. The Court is further satisfied that, in overall terms, the benefits provided by the Company/TEEU agreement are not less favourable than those provided by the other agreement with which comparison was drawn.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th October, 2001______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.