FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : AMCOR FLEXIBLES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Referral from the Labour Relations Commission under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. Amcor Flexibles Sligo Ltd is a subsidiary of Amcor Flexibles, a flexible packaging company specialising in printing and converting for the health care industry, with 39 plants located throughout 15 European countries. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and SIPTU in relation to the rates of pay for trainees and qualified print machine operators at its Sligo plant.
The parties are also in dispute in relation to certain aspects of the Company's Grievance and Discipinary procedures.
The Union referred the matter to the Labour Relations Commission on the 17th January 2005 under the enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I.76 of 2004). The dispute was not resolved and was subsequently referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 8th June 2005.
The following is the Court's Recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the company have accepted that the conditions precedent to the Court’s jurisdiction contained at section 2(1) of the Act have been fulfilled.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court has concluded as follows:
The Union contend that its members associated with the claim are craft printers and that the rates of pay applicable to them are out of line with those payable to similarly skilled craft workers in other employments. The Union have claimed the rates of pay in line with those recommended by the Court in recommendation LCR17502, in respect of craft workers employed by Local Authorities and Health Boards (now the Health Service Executive).
The company contend that the workers associated with the claim are not craft workers in that they did not serve a recognised apprenticeship. Without prejudice to its position in that regard the company further contend that the rates paid by the company are in excess of those negotiated between the Printing Trades’ Group of Unions and the Irish Printing Federation (a copy of the Agreement was provided to the Court).
Union’s claim is derived from a survey of rates undertaken for the purpose of determining the pay of maintenance craft workers in the public sector (the Analogue Review). The rates reviewed are those applicable to similar categories of craft workers in a variety of public and private sector employments. The pay of Printers and associated workers is not included in the Analogue Review and, in the Court’s view, the outcome of that review is of no value in ascertaining what is a normal or appropriate level of pay for workers in the printing trade.
The rates set out in the agreement between the Printing Trades Group and the Irish Printing Federation provide a fair indication of the level of pay which the workers associated with this claim would be entitled to receive if their pay was determined by collective bargaining. It is noted that their current rate of pay exceeds that provided for similar work by that agreement. Accordingly the Court does not accept that there is any basis for the union's claim.
The Court notes that in the case of the apprentice the company have offered to adjust the rate of pay at the commencement of year four. The Court is of the view that the company should proceed accordingly and that this should be accepted by the Union.
Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.
The Union claimed that the current internal procedures for the processing of issues relating to individual grievances and disciplinary matters are inadequate in that they do not provide for representation of employees by a trade union in appropriate cases.
The employer informed the Court that it intends to review its internal procedures having regard to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000). The employer should proceed accordingly. Any dispute concerning the compatibility of the revised internal procedures with the provisions of the Code of Practice should be processed through the procedures of Section 43 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, as appropriate.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th July 2005______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.