FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRE-TEX PACKAGING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. In December 2001, the Company created the position of allocator. Six positions were initially created, and the allocators were employed to carry out work previously done by forklift drivers. The Union claims that there was a clear understanding that the allocators would be given a pay increase after a probation period.
The Union claimed parity with the forklift drivers, which was rejected by the Company, and then made a claim for a 12% increase on basic pay. The Company made an offer of 6% retrospective to the 1st of January, 2003. Following a conciliation conference in March, 2003, the Company offered to pay €5,000 lump sum (gross) to be divided among the 4 allocators involved in the dispute plus a fifth allocator who had worked for a lesser time. This was for work done during a 6 month period from December 2001 to June 2002, and was accepted by the Union.
What is in dispute now is the rate for the allocators going forward. In September, 2003, the Company offered an allowance equivalent to 6% of basic pay plus some retrospection ranging from €552 to €604 for the 4 workers. The Union rejected the offer and is still seeking application of the forklift rate.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of November, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of March, 2004, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There is a written agreement that the workers would receive a pay increase once they had satisfactorily completed the probationary period.
2. The workers have rejected the Company's 6% offer as the job is very strenuous and physical. The number of allocators has reduced from 6 to 4 and the workers have absorbed the extra work.
3. The position is not comparable to the general operatives position as the Company claims.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and is in breach of Sustaining Progress.
2. The work done by the allocators cannot be compared to the forklift drivers' duties. As such, the Company cannot pay them the forklift rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought the application of a pay increase to the newly created allocator position. It sought parity with the forklift operator grade or, as a minimum, an increase of 12% in their basic rate of pay. The Company rejected the parity claim and offered to increase the basic rate by 6%. This offer included retrospection to 1st January, 2003.
Having considered the submissions, the Court is of the view that allocator duties are not comparable with the forklift operator duties and, accordingly, does not justify the forklift operator's rate.
The Court is of the view that the Company's offer, as outlined in Appendix 4 of its submission to the Court, is reasonable and should be accepted in full and final settlement of all issues related to this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th April, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.