FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY INGREDIENTS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay following training.
BACKGROUND:
2. It is the Union's contention that for many years workers carrying out higher duties should be paid the higher rate of pay on completion of a satisfactory training period (12 weeks) with retrospection from the date training commenced. The Union gave examples of Grade III workers who would be paid at Grade V on completing their training. The Union also believes that workers who complete temporary acting-up duties over a period of time (three hours per day over a period of 8 weeks) should be paid the higher rate. The Union quoted two agreements from 1974 and 1977 as the source of its claim. The Company denies that there has ever been automatic promotion / increase in pay following training. This only happens if the worker is qualified for the higher grade. The Company gave four examples of pay/grading as follows:-(1) both pay and grade increase (re-grading) following a successful training period, (2) both pay and grade are retained while doing lower grade work (re deployment) at the request of the Company, (3) both pay and grade are reduced (move to a lower grade at worker's request) and (4) the grade remains the same and pay increases temporarily (acting up).
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of November, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th of May, 2005, in Tralee.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim is based on custom and practice since the early days of the Company. The agreements from 1974 and 1977 confirm this.
2. The Company has been in breach of long standing agreements and should pay restitution to the workers affected.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has operated a very clear policy on grading at the Listowel site. Grading is not automatic and is not driven by training. The four examples listed above show how grading / pay is operated.
2. It would not make sense that employees would be paid for work that they do not perform.
3. The agreements of 1974 and 1977 quoted by the Union have been superseded by further agreements since those dates.
RECOMMENDATION:
There was disagreement between the parties as to the nature of the referral of the claim before the Court and its scope. Having considered the matter, the Court is satisfied that the two issues mentioned below are the issues before the Court and can see no reason why they should not relate across the board to all operatives in the Company.
The two issues before the Court are identified as follows:-
(a) payment of the appropriate grade rate on completion of the initial training period,
and
(b) payment of higher grade rate on a permanent basis on completion of temporary acting up duties.
The Union contends that retrospection should be paid from the date the training commenced.
The Union argues that agreements made in 1974 and 1977 establish an entitlement to the upgraded rate on a permanent basis once the worker has worked three hours per day for a period of eight weeks in an acting-up capacity.
The Company argues that these agreements have no relevance and have been superseded by further agreements since the 1970s.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends as follows:-
(a) On successful completion of the initial twelve weeks training period (at which point the appropriate grade rate is applied), the Court recommends that the appropriate grade rate should be paid retrospectively for the 12-week training period. The Court recommends that this should be deemed to have taken effect from the 1st March, 2004.
(b) The Court does not accept the Union's argument that the 1974/1977 agreements establish entitlements as claimed. The Company indicated to the Court that it would be amenable to placing employees on the higher rate permanently where such employees have been acting up for substantial periods e.g. eight months of the year. The Court endorses this approach as reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances and recommends that it should be formalised between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th June, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.