FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TYCO HEALTHCARE - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Increase in rates of pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union submitted a pay claim on behalf of five of its members located at the company's plant at Casla, Connemara, Co Galway. The Union claims that the pay rates of the claimants has fallen behind that of their colleagues based in Tullamore. It states that Labour Court Recommendation LCR17068 gave rise to increases in rates of pay of 8% to employees at the Tullamore plant but management refused to give it to the Union's members in Casla.
Management rejected the Union's claim for an 8% pay increase for its members in Casla.
As the parties failed to reach agreement the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in May, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Galway on the 24th September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Tyco Healthcare Ltd is part of Tyco International Ltd, is a worldwide company with substantial financial resources available, yet they refuse to address a claim in respect of 5 employees whose rates of pay have fallen behind that of their colleagues based in Tullamore.
2. The workers in Casla are being discriminated against by the company. It is unfair and unacceptable that a small group of employees, doing similar work for the same employer, should be paid a rate of pay which is less favourable than other employees are paid within the company.
3. The company has not engaged in any meaningful negotiations since this claim was lodged in June, 2002.
4. The rates of pay for the workers concerned are low and are out of line with rates of pay in the Healthcare Industry generally.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. This is another attempt by the union to compare wage rates across Tyco plants in Ireland. If conceded it will give encouragement for further parity wage claims among the ten other plants in Ireland.
2. If this claim is successful, the union would effectively have gained two wage increases above and beyond the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
3. There is no reason why the Galway plant should be compared with the Tullamore plant. Galway is a distribution centre while Tullamore is a manufacturing plant and both locations have different management and reporting structures.
4. The claim before the Court is cost increasing and therefore is precluded under the terms of both the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the Company arguments that the increases given in relation to the Tullamore operation were in return for productivity, and that the Tullamore plant is a manufacturing plant as against this plant being a distribution operation.
However, the Court is conscious that in 2000 following negotiations increases were given which would seem to indicate an effort to acknowledge some form of linkage to the Tullamore plant.
The Court having considered both the written and oral submissions made before it does not recommend concession of this claim as presented but recommends that if the Union can produce a proposal which would result in a cost neutral effect on the claim, the Company should consider such a proposal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th October, 2003______________________
LW/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.