FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BARRYS TIMBER - FERMOY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted a pay claim on behalf of twenty-four of its members in Fermoy for pay parity with their colleagues in Cork. Their Cork colleagues had secured a service based increase.
Management rejected the Union's claim and stated that there was never pay parity between the workers in Fermoy and the workers in Cork.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 23rd of May, 2001, 13th of March, 2002, and the 23rd of April, 2002, but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd of May, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the 4th of September, 2002 (the earliest date suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have co-operated with change up to and including co-operation with the new clocking system and paypath.
2. Management has changed the working conditions of employees without any consultation or agreement with the Union.
3. There is no justification for paying a higher rate of pay to workers in Cork.
4. The Union is seeking retrospection of €6.35 differential from the 1st of August, 2000 to the 31st of December, 2001 and the balance of the parity claim of €23.46 from the 1st of January, 2002 to date.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has never been pay parity between Cork and Fermoy. Both facilities are unique in work practices. Fermoy operating as a production facility and Cork as a retail D.I.Y. outlet.
2. The Company is fully committed to the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). The Company is not in a financial position to facilitate a pay claim outside the terms of the PPF.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of the PPF.
4. The pay increase in Cork was based on job description and length of service.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought restoration of pay parity with that paid by the Cork branch of the Company. To address a similar claim in the Cork branch the Company introduced a service related increment. Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is not satisfied that parity of pay has been established. The Court accepts that the operation in Fermoy is quite different to that operating in the Cork branch and accordingly the category of workers is also different.
The Court notes the Company's current difficult financial position. To address the claim the Court recommends that the Union should meet with the Company to discuss the introduction of a service related increase in pay for the employees in Fermoy.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th September, 2002______________________
LW/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.