FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS - AND - SUPERVISORY REPRESENTATIVE GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Non-payment of performance related pay / basic pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures baby food in Askeaton, Co Limerick. It employs in excess of 60 supervisors to provide front line management in all areas of activity. The majority of supervisors are represented by the Supervisory Representative Group (SRG) which is recognised by the Company through a formal letter of understanding.
The supervisors annual review of pay takes into account two factors - the cost of living pay increase and performance related pay.
In 2001/2002, the Company and the Union were in negotiations in relation to base pay. The Company made an offer which amounted to 5% .The Union accepted it for implementation in January, 2003.
In January 2003, the Company stated that it was not in a position to pay the increases previously agreed due to an embargo imposed by the parent Company in America. A derogation was sought and approval to pay a 4% increase was received.
The dispute 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 12th of December, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company agreed to pay a 5% increase from January, 2003. It has only paid a 4% increase to the supervisors since January, 2003.
2. The Company is refusing to honour the agreement, citing a Corporate embargo as the reason.
3. The Company should honour the agreement and pay the agreed increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company accepts that it agreed, in good faith, a cost of living increase of 5% for 2003.
2. The Irish management secured an exemption for supervisors from the Corporate world wide salary freeze, allowing them to apply a 4% increase.
3. The Askeaton supervisors are the only group that does not accept the Corporate decision to reduce the salary increase level from 1st January, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties should acknowledge that a valid agreement exists by which the amounts claimed by the group are due and owing to the supervisors.
However, arising from factors outside the control of local management it is not possible to fully implement the terms of the agreement at this time. This should also be acknowledged.
The Court recommends that the position regarding implementation be reviewed locally within six months of the date of this recommendation and at six monthly intervals thereafter. If this matter remains unresolved after a period of eighteen months from the date of this recommendation, it may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th March, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.