FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY INGREDIENTS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay of laboratory personnel.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for a review of the pay of approximately 30 laboratory staff. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in June, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Tralee on the 16th September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has sought a review of the pay rates of laboratory staff since 2000. Despite a commitment by the Company to do so during the currency of the Partnership 2000 agreement no progress has been made.
2. The rates of pay applicable to the laboratory staff are significantly out of line with those applying in many companies and it is essential that the Company, in consultation with the Union, undertake a review of their pay rates .
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Laboratory staff received substantial increases since 1988 and in 2000 received an increase of 20.5% in respect of future productivity. While the Company paid this increase in good faith there is no evidence of specific productivity improvements having been made by the claimants.
2 The Company has reviewed the pay rates of laboratory staff and considers that a further pay increase is not warranted.
3. The pay claim is cost increasing and precluded under the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted that the company did agree to a pay review for laboratory personnel as part of the settlement of an earlier claim during the currency of Partnership 2000. Therefore the union's claim that such a review now be undertaken cannot be precluded by the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress.
It appears, however, that both parties had different understandings as to the form which the review would take. On balance, the Court believes that in the context in which the review was agreed, it was reasonable for the union to have assumed that it would be conducted jointly. Had the company intended otherwise this should have been made clear to the union at the material time.
In the circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should undertake a joint review of the pay of the claimant grade. The terms of reference of the review are primarily a matter to be agreed between the parties. It should, however, examine the extent to which the duties attaching to the grade have changed and the degree of comparability between the duties and pay of the claimants and that of laboratory personnel in analogous employments. Full regard should also be had to the need to ensure that the outcome of the review does not result in consequential claims from other grades within the employment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th September, 2003______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.