FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEO LABORATORIES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Team Leader pay
BACKGROUND:
2. Leo Laboratories is a Danish Company engaged in the manufacturing of human and animal medicines in Dublin since 1958 and employs approximately 430 people. In 1993 the Company concluded a comprehensive pay and productivity agreement entitled "New Deal" for Productivity/Continuous Improvement. One of the items in the agreement was the restructuring of pay scales involving a reduction from 6 operative grades to 2 operative grades. All personnel, including Team Leaders on the former grades 4,5 and 6 moved up to the new operative Grade 2.
Due to the extra responsibilities imposed on Team Leaders (Grade 2 operatives), the Union submitted a claim for a 20% differential for Team Leaders. After extensive discussions and consideration by the Company the claim was rejected.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 18th February, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act. 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd September, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Team Leaders employed by the Company are paid the same rate of pay as operatives who do not carry the responsibility or skills of leading a team. The claim for a 20% differential payment is submitted in recognition of these responsibilities and skills.
2. The "New Deal" Agreement in 1993 addressed many anomalies within the Company. Though the anomaly of Team Leaders recognition was identified by the Union at the time of the Deal, the Company refused to allow for it in its proposals indicating that the cost of the rest of the package was already risking approval from its financial controllers in Denmark.
3. The overall package was accepted at the time by the Union as an improvement in an outdated and incomprehensive wage structure. It was not accepted as the definitive structure for all times.
4. The Company's failure to recognise the additional responsibilities and skills of Team Leaders has lead to a major sense of grievance.
5. The refusal of the Company to address the issue is counter productive and will make the task of maintaining good industrial relations much more difficult.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 Team Leaders are paid 25% more than those employed by the Company's competitors.
2. Team Leaders have less responsibility than other Grade 2 operatives.
3. Concession of this claim will destabilise the entire pay structure and give rise to repercussive claims.
4. This claim is cost increasing and as such is precluded under the terms of the National Agreement, Sustaining Progress.
5. The current claim cannot be justified and would if conceded, have a major and negative impact on the Company's deteriorating competitiveness.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court is of the view that the claim for a differential of 20% for Team Leaders is contrary to the terms of the agreement reached between the parties in 1993 when the Team Leader's grade was subsumed into the newly created Grade 2 rate. The Court is also of the view that the claim is cost increasing and is consequently, debarred under the terms of Sustaining Progress. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th September, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.