FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH SUGAR LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UNION OF CONSTRUCTION, ALLIED TRADES AND TECHNICIANS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Foreman's rate.
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1994, the Company entered into a review of its grading structure in relation to its general operatives. The review was carried out by the Irish Productivity Centre which recommended a 5-grade structure in place of the existing 8-grade structure. Grade 5 was created as a promotional grade. Rates of pay for the new grades were agreed following LCR15524 which was issued in May, 1997.
With the aid of a facilitator it was agreed that various training modules would be undertaken on a voluntary basis by craftsmen in order to qualify for the Technician's rate. An evaluation of a number of posts was carried out by the facilitator. His report issued on the 2nd of February, 2001.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions that the foreman should maintain a differential above the new technician's rate. The Company rejects the claim stating that under the terms of the facilitator's proposals dated the 18th of October, 2000, the new technician's rate incorporated the foreman's rate.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th of March, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th of August, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The position of Foreman and the respective rates of pay exists in the Company since its foundation.
2. All Foremen have some supervisory and man-management responsibilities. They also play a key role in safety and work authorising procedures and are responsible for training apprentices.
3. It was never agreed that the Technician's rate incorporated the Foreman's rate. The Foreman's rate should be retained.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has honoured all its commitments in accordance with LCR15658.
2. Under the terms of the facilitator's proposals dated the 18th of October, 2000, the new technician's rate incorporated the foreman's rate.
3. Any concession of the Unions' claim would result in repercussive claims.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both parties agree that the terms on which the technician category was introduced are as set out in the facilitator's letter dated 18th October, 2000. That letter clearly envisaged the absorption of all personal, supervisory and plus rates in the new arrangement. An exception was to apply in the case of those with man-management/planning responsibilities.
There was a disagreement between the parties at that time as to the number of craft workers who came within that exception. The facilitator proposed, and the parties
accepted, a process for identifying those with man-management/planning responsibilities. The Court is fully satisfied that the process was carried out objectively and professionally by a highly experienced industrial relations practitioner. The Court can see no basis on which it should interfere with the factual conclusions reached.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the report of the facilitator dated 2nd February, 2001 be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
5th September, 2002______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.