FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DISTILLERS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Grade/allowance increase
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 473 people at three sites in Ireland. In 2002, an agreement was reached on the operation of an extended warehousing and distribution complex which included the redefining of rates for the warehouse workers and a 12% increase in basic pay. The case before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of two forklift drivers employed in the materials warehouse, for an increase in pay for what they claim is an increase in productivity, increased skills and responsibility.The bottle reception unit, the two workers concerned work in, was extended in 2003. They are seeking the application of the 12% adjustment to basic pay that their colleagues in the distribution unit received in the agreement.
- The Company reject the claim on the basis that there has been no changes in the work performed by the drivers concerned.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 December, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th April, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The drivers have been more productive and have extended their level of skill and now drive a double bladed forktruck. The Company reduced pallet heights from five to four resulting in an increase in handling and loading capacity.
2. An extra operative assigned to the unit by Management was withdrawn in October/November 2003
3. The workers were serving three production lines. Currently four lines are in operation and it is anticipated that a fifth will come into operation.
4. The Union contends that the volume of cases is anticipated to increase by 4,000 to 5,000 cases a day as a result of the closure of a bottling plant in Cork city.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been no significant change or increase in responsibility levels or quality of work for the drivers.
2. The new attachment to the forklift allows two pallets to be moved simultaneously thus reducing the number of trips required within the warehouse, it does not require a significant increase in skill level.
3. Manning of the area continues to be reviewed but a permanent additional resource is not required at this time, The Company will provide additional resource at peak times.
4. It is accepted that there may be occasions of increased work in the area, but it is a resource issue and not a pay issue. This could have a knock on effect and the Company cannot concede to a cost increasing claim
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully the oral and written submissions of the parties in this case.
Amongst other grounds the employer relies upon in resisting this claim is that it is cost increasing and therefore precluded by Clause 1.5 of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress. The Court is satisfied that the claim is cost increasing and that the changes on which it is based do not go beyond what could properly be regarded as normal on-going change.
Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th May 2004______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.