FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Inclusion of 7.4% training allowance in basic pay for superannuation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an operating unit of Wyeth Nutritionals International and a subsidiary of American Home Products Corporation. The Company is engaged in the manufacture of infant nutritional products in powder and liquid form. In October, 2000, a considerable customer order backlog developed and the only means of eliminating the backlog was to introduce seven day working. Negotiations commenced with the Unions representing the affected employees and agreement was reached.
During negotiation, the Company agreed that the training allowance, while remaining an allowance would be treated as part of basic pay so that it would be reflected in shift and overtime payments. The payment of the allowance was to remain in place until superseded by an alternative agreement or in an annualised hours agreement which the parties intended to negotiate.
The Union claimed that the allowance be also included for pension entitlement, the Company rejected the claim and as no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 11th of February, 2002, under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Limerick on the 20th of February, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union believe that the allowance should be added to basic pay for pension calculations.
2. There was never an indication during discussions that the union were negotiating anything other than a permanent arrangement.
3. The agreement clearly shows that what was agreed was permanent.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The training allowance is regarded as a temporary allowance.
2. The Company remains committed to the progression of an annualised hours structure.
3. There is a broad recognition within the organisation of the need for change and the timing is now opportune.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that the terms of the agreement between the parties provides for the continuance of the 7.4% allowance unless and until it is superseded by a new agreement. On that basis, the Court recommends that the Company should withdraw its proposal to discontinue the allowance on the 1st of May, 2002.
In return, the Union should confirm its willingness to enter into serious negotiations with a view to concluding an annualised hours agreement. The parties should also agree a realistic time-frame for the conclusion of those negotiations.
The elements of pay which are to be reckonable for pension purposes within the proposed annualised hours agreement, will be a matter for negotiation and agreement between the parties. Accordingly, the Union's claim to have the allowance included in pensionable pay should be resolved in that context.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
7th March, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.