FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VALENTIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the production of siliconised release films and adhesive tapes at its plant in Valentia Island, Co Kerry. It currently employs seven workers. The Company is wholly owned by one of five owners of PPI Adhesive Products Limited based in Waterford.
In mid 2000, an agreement was concluded between the Union and Management at the Waterford plant to increase the rates of pay for their employees. This increase was negotiated in return for increased productivity and also involved the consolidation of an existing bonus into the basic rate of pay.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for a similar increase in their rate of pay on the basis that pay parity existed between the two Companies.
The Company rejects the claim stating that no such parity ever existed.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of November, 2001, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of April, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There was always an understanding that pay parity existed between the two Companies.
2. Even though the workers are on a three day working week they are failing to meet the orders.
3. The workers concerned should receive the same pay increase as the workers in the Waterford plant. They should not be treated less favourably by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has never been pay parity between the Companies. They are both responsible for their own financial performance. They remain separate Companies.
2. In August, 2001, as a result of a decline in business a decision was made to place the workers concerned on a short time three day working week.
3. The claim is cost increasing and in breach of the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both sides, the Court is constrained by the terms of the PPF from recommending concession, as this is a cost-increasing claim. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Union should not pursue this claim at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
29th April, 2002______________________
G.B./C.C.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.