FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : COGNIS IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Interpretation of the 2002 Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures speciality chemicals for the mining and detergent industries and employs 123 workers. The dispute, concerning 15 craftworkers, relates to the interpretation of Clause 8 of the 2002 Company Union Agreement. The Union contends that Clause 8 gives the claimants financial reward specifically linked to training and upskilling. The Company rejects this interpretation. Initially the Union rejected the 2002 agreement that contained Clauses 1 to 7 on the basis that it did not address the Union's concerns in relation to the craftworkers pay having fallen behind workers in comparable companies. Following discussions between the parties Clause 8 was subsequently agreed. Difficulties arose when the Union requested implementation. The Company claims that Clause 8 is inextricably linked to Clause 6 (Target Driven Bonus Scheme). This provides for potential target earnings in any one year. The Union claims that these clauses are separate and seeks financial reward separately under Clause 8. 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 October, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Cork on the 11th February, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 8 provides for negotiations that will deliver a payment to craftworkers for engaging in training and a further payment for demonstrating the skills associated with the training. The Company should implement Clause 8 through negotiations if necessary as provided for in the clause.
2. The claimants should receive payment (to be negotiated) for a value added contribution to the Company on foot of agreed training and upskilling. These payments are entirely outside any payments due under Clause 6.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. From the outset of discussions the Company has repeatedly stated that it cannot pay for training per se or per module completed.
2. The Company is prepared to acknowledge the benefits associated with improved training in a form of a Target Driven Bonus Scheme whereby targets/benefits associated from additional training were identified and payments made on the degree of achievement.
RECOMMENDATION:
An agreement signed by both parties in October 2002 is the subject of this dispute. The Union maintain that Clause 8 of the agreement entitles craftworkers to financial reward specifically linked to training and upskilling. The Company is strongly of the view that Clause 8 and Clause 6 are inextricably linked and that therefore the reward mentioned in Clause 8 relates to the Target Driven Bonus and not to an additional payment related to the training and upskilling.
Having considered the position of both sides the Court accepts that as Clause 8 was an addition to the agreement for the reasons outlined, it must have a particular significance. The Court also accepts that the Union had a clear expectation that Clause 8 would lead to some additional payment following negotiations on a training and upskilling programme.
In the Court's view, the significance of Clause 8 lies in the intention of the parties to enter discussions on the format, timeframe and method of delivery of the training and upskilling, and negotiations on financial reward associated with this programme - independent of the Target Driven Bonus.
Therefore, the Court understands that the first part of these negotiations have taken place and been implemented and recommends that the parties should enter negotiations on the reward element without delay, and should be completed within six weeks. In the event that no agreement is reached between the parties, outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th February, 2004______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.