FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : OLYMPUS DIAGNOSTICA (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. Rate of pay, upgrading and application of the Union /Management agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company develops and manufactures medical diagnostic reagents and is located in Co. Clare. The dispute concerns 5 security personnel who have between 3 and 16 years' service. Security staff are paid at grade 2. The 5 workers are on shift duty and work between 8 and 39 hours per week at €10.53 per hour.
In 2001, an extensive change programme between the parties brought about a change in the grading structure. The majority of grade 2 workers went to grade 3. Workers who remained at grade 1 or grade 2 attracted a pay increase. However, neither the upgrading or the pay increase was applied to the 5 security workers. The Union is seeking that they be upgraded to grade 3, backdated to January, 2003, when the claim was first made. The Union is also seeking the application of a shift premium for the workers. The Company, in an effort to resolve the dispute, offered to increase the basic pay rate for the workers by 11% but this was rejected.
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 14th August, 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. The Union believes that the Company/Union agreement, and negotiated changes to terms and conditions, applies to all its members, including security staff. However, the upgrading and pay increases of 2001 have not been applied to the 5 workers concerned.
2. The workers deserve to be upgraded to grade 3 due to the level of responsibility and tasks they perform (details supplied to the Court).
3. The Company/Union agreement states that 2-cycle shift calls for a premium of 20%. There is agreement that should another shift be required, rates will be negotiated. This agreement has never applied to security personnel.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The hourly rate of €10.53 is an all - inclusive rate, including shift, and concession of the claim would result in a 31% increase in labour costs, something the Company cannot afford.
2. Security staff were given a 5% pay increase on top of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) in May, 2001, without having to concede any productivity changes.
3. There is no comparison in terms of responsibility between the security workers and grade 3 staff.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought regrading of security personnel from Grade 2 to Grade 3 and the application of the Company/Union agreement which provides for the introduction of a shift premium.
In an attempt to resolve outstanding matters, the Company made an offer to increase the basic rate of all security staff by 11%.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court is of the view that there is no merit in the regrading claim and, accordingly, the Court rejects this claim. The Court does not accept that the application of the Company/Union agreement providing shift premium applies to this grade.
However, to reflect all duties and conditions of security personnel, including their hours of work, the Court recommends that the Company's offer should be increased to €12.00 per hour. The Court makes this recommendation on the basis that this rate will become a new stand-alone rate specific to security personnel and should be deemed to have become effective from 1st March, 2004.
The Court notes that the Company accepts that there must be an element of differentiation paid in respect of a Sunday premium.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st April, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.