FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MERCK SHARP & DOHME (IRELAND) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 11% basic pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union has submitted a claim for 11% increase in basic pay for its members employed at the Company's manufacturing plant near Clonmel, Co. Tipperary. It states that the claim is to restore a relativity which its members had with craftworkers employed by the Company.
Management rejected the Union's claim and stated that the agreement concluded with the craftworkers incorporating a 15% shift premium was also available to its members in the maintenance department. It also stated that an agreement was concluded with SIPTU in May, 2000, incorporating a package of pay and benefits amounting to 10% above the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (P.P.F.) and also paid the additional 2% and 1% lump sum under the P.P.F. stability clause.
As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 31st of October, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th of January, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 9th of April, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a pay increase to restore the relativity between craftworkers and general workers employed by the Company.
2. The Company has breached the terms of the P.P.F. with the agreement concluded with the craftworkers.
3. The agreement with the craftworkers discriminates against the Union's members and justifies a claim for an 11% pay increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has the right under the terms of its agreement with SIPTU to introduce new methods of working and to alter shift or work hours as required.
2. There has been no change to the pay rates for unionised employees. Shift premia should not be used as a basis for comparing pay rates.
3. Any further pay improvements would impose an unsustainable cost increase on the Company's operations and damage the competitiveness of the plant.
4. The claim is outside the terms of the P.P.F. and cannot be justified on objective or economic grounds.
RECOMMENDATION:
In formulating its recommendation in this case, the Court has concluded:-
1. The agreement concluded between the Craft Unions and the Company is a matter entirely between those parties. It is not part of the Court's function to evaluate its validity or otherwise comment upon its provisions.
2. Following any industrial relations negotiations, circumstances may arise which makes a concluded agreement more or less attractive than was originally envisaged. Nonetheless the parties are expected to honour and adhere to their agreement until its term expires or it is voluntarily renegotiated.
3. In the present case, the parties concluded an agreement dated May, 2000, which is to run for a thirty-three month period. By implication, no cost increasing claims can be served or processed within that period.
In these circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th April, 2002______________________
LW/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.