FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : PEPSICO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Equity of salary claim with colleagues employed under same job title.
BACKGROUND:
2. The worker has been employed by Pepsico since May 2003, as one of 5 manufacturing support technicians. The Union claim that there is a differential of between €12,000 to €13,000 with a colleague employed under the same job title. When the worker became aware of this he raised it with management and a request for equity enhancement. This was rejected by the Company.
As the claim could not be resolved at local level, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on the 15th February, 2005 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th June, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The worker performs the same duties and functions as the other 4 manufacturing support technicians and the Union is seeking an equity adjustment that reflects the salary being paid to the technicians on a higher salary.
2. The Union is not seeking to dismantle the pay structure.
3. The current disparity of €12K - €13K is totally unacceptable.
4. The worker has demonstrated through his own volition and initiative that his skills are on a par and in some cases surpass in some areas those of his colleagues.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The workers salary progress has being substantial since he joined the Company.
2. Employees are not paid the exact same but are paid within the same range for their jobs which is the case as applied to the worker and his colleagues.
3. Each technician is on a salary that reflects the market value and the knowledge and skills that each has brought with them to the Company or the development of these skills since joining. This has been the practice that has applied to all other workers who are employed under the same job titles within the company.
4. The Company is satisfied that it has a positive disposition to all employees under their salary management and review system provided that the workers performance matches what is required. There are gaps that the claimant has to make up. This is the route through which he will progress from his current salary level to one that is higher.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that to address the difficulties which exist between the parties that the Company's clarified (€1000 increase to basic pay) offer of 20th September 2004 should be accepted with an implementation date backdated to 20th September 2004. In addition the Court recommends that the worker should as an exceptional measure be further assessed by his new manager, in the first week of October, 2005 and any resulting award which might arise from that process should be backdated to 1st March 2005.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
4th_July, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.