FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CROSS VETPHARM GROUP LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an Irish owned subsidiary of Cross Vetpharm Group Holdings Limited based in Tallaght, Dublin. The case refers to a worker who has been employed as a maintenance/fitter technician since October, 1999. In March 2004, the position of maintenance/electrician technician was filled and in error that person was put on the Electrical Contractors Association rate. The Union's claim is for full retrospection back to 23rd February 2004 on the basis that this was when the maintenance/electrician technician was given his contract.
On the 6th July, 2005 in a effort to settle the dispute the Company made a final offer to the worker, which included an increase in salary to include extra responsibilities and have it retrospected back to August, 2004 This was rejected by him on the basis that he still wanted parity with the other technician. On 8th August 2005 the worker accepted the increased salary in line with extra responsibility but still wanted full retrospection to 23rd February 2004 for shift and overtime.
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 16th June, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The Union contend that the worker is a qualified tradesman and as a consequence is covered by the appropriate rates of pay for craft workers.
2. In correspondence dated 29th July, 2005 the worker requested that the Company offer in his contract, that no annual increments outside the electrical be added to the agreement, this has now been removed by the Company. Without this the other technician would be able to get pay rises or nothing would happen for the worker until March, 2006.
3. The worker confirmed he was happy with the offer, but was still looking for money due on the shift premium and overtime work added into the retrospection payments.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The worker and the other technician are employed on separate contracts with differing roles and responsibilities
2. There is no basis to link the claimants contract with the Electrical Contractors Association rates.
3. The offer made to the worker was made in an effort to settle the dispute in recognition of his loyal service to the Company, but not in recognition of any parity between the contracts.
4. The Company have made a very fair offer by offering a nominal amount in the spirit of settling the dispute. It has been accepted by both parties that the additional salary is being paid in return for an increase in responsibilities. These responsibilities were not undertaken until August, 2005. Thus there is no basis for retrospection in relation to shift or overtime.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company reinstate its offer of retrospection to 1st August, 2004 (as set out in its letter of 6th July, 2005 to the Union) and that this should be accepted by the Union in full and final settlement of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th August, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.