FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : A.S. RICHARDSON (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rate of pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a timber business in Newtowngore, Co Leitrim, and employs approximately 38 people. In November 2001, the stener mill closed, resulting in nineteen redundancies, most of which were at general operative level.
- The Union's claim is on behalf of the seven remaining general operatives for pay parity with the sorter grade, as these posts have become interchangeable.
The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relation's Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th August 2003 , in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 A valid reason has not been given by the Company as to why pay increases were paid to a certain number of employees and not others, and they are in direct breach of the collective agreement.
2 The Company refused to allow the Union's industrial engineer to investigate if there were solid grounds for granting the pay increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The general operative position has not changed and is not interchangeable with the sorter grade as this grade had a clearly defined role and the work was specific to the jobholder. The Company is prepared to red circle the rates of pay of the sorter grade, to protect the rate of pay of the jobholders.
2 The Company agreed to allow an industrial engineer to examine the gainsharing scheme in the Company, to check how targets were set and bonus schemes decided but not to determine the appropriateness of the current wage structure.
3 The Company has honoured its commitments under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and this claim of 7.2% is above the terms of the programme and is a cost increasing claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission of both sides to this dispute. The Court understands that as a result of a claim by three/four general operatives in November 2000, their rate of pay was increased to the Sorter Grade rate, in recognition of the duties associated with sorting and grading timber, duties which were described as dusty, dirty and unpopular by the Union and as a valuable skill by the employer.
Following the reorganisation of the mill, these duties are no longer required but the rates of pay are retained by the individual workers on a personal to holder basis.
The Union are now seeking the regrading of all general operatives to the Sorter Grade. The Court sees no merit in the claim and is of the view that it is a cost-increasing claim and is therefore debarred under the terms of both PPF and Sustaining Progress.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th November 2003______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jo O'Connor, Court Secretary.