FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : YVES ROCHER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. Yves Rocher is a French owned company involved in the manafacture, quality control and packaging of a range of natural cosmetic products for the global market. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Company and SIPTU in relation to the establishment of a pay structure for 4 "non cadre" (Administrative/ Laboratory/ Supervisory/Scheduler) staff groups identified in a report carried out by the Irish Productivity Centre (IPC) in relation to pay structures within the Company. The report of the IPC, which was accepted by both sides, provides for separate pay structures for the four identified grades in the report.
The Union are seeking a pay structure to take account of National Wage Agreements, a yearly incremental scale, retrospection to January 2001 and for the phases of National Wage Agreements to be brought up to date.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that pay determination in the Company is governed by the company's Headquarters in France and was never negotiable between the parties.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd September, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd March, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rates of pay proposed by the Company are below industry norm and are at variance with the terms of the IPC report.
2. The Company and the Union accepted the terms and recommendations of the IPC report, therefore the Union would contend that both sides were in agreement with the establishment of a separate pay structure for the 4 grades. It is not acceptable to blame the company's headquarters in France for local management's failure to negotiate proper terms and conditions.
3. Pay rates within the company should be clear and transparent and based on experience with the company. It is not appropriate to determine pay rates on a performance based appraisal system.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Salary determination is the responsibility of the Company's headquarters in France; local management were not in a position to negotiate on this.
2. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
3. The Union have declined to participate in the final stage of the job evaluation grading exercise which will result in the non payment of increases for certain staff members who achieve certain ratings within the Performance Appraisal System.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court relates to the Union’s claim for pay scales for the four grades identified by the IPC report, as the appropriate ranking structure for the various administrative/laboratory grades/vendor/shift leaders employed by the Company.
In response the Company, through its head office in France, determined a new pay structure, this pay structure was not negotiated with the Union.
The Union do not accept the structure proposed, stating that a clear impression was given when the IPC job evaluation exercise was commissioned, that a pay structure encompassing its outcome would be implemented.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court takes the view that the Company’s position is unsustainable as it does not allow for any discussion/negotiation on the pay structure put forward by the Company’s headquarters in France.
Taking both parties considerations into view, coupled with the outcome of the IPC report, the Court recommends that the following salary scales should be implemented for non-cadre staff:
Grade A Grade B Grade C Grade D
€23,200 €26,680 €29,230 €32,032
€23,780 €27,105 €29,697 €32,546
€24,360 €27,530 €30,164 €33,060
€24,940 €27,955 €30,631 €33,574
€25,520 €28,380 €31,098 €34,088
€26,100 €28,805 €31,565 €34,602
€26,680 €29,230 €32,032 €35,116
The Court recommends that incremental increases should be paid on an annual basis, to the maximum of the appropriate scale subject to individual performance appraisals. Increases in the scales should take account of national wage agreement increases as they may apply.
Assimilation
Assimilation onto the scale should be on the basis of the nearest monetary point plus one increment.
As Ms. B Furlong (classified as Grade A) current salary already exceeds the maximum of the above-recommended pay scale, the Court recommends that she should retain this rate on a personal to holder basis.
Implementation Date
The Court recommends that the above salary scales should be implemented with effect from 1st January 2005.
Vendor/Scheduler Language Payment
The Court does not recommend in favour of a Language Allowance payment for Vendor/Schedulers.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st March, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.