FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GERNORD-ARDEE EXTRUSIONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rates of pay - differential
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Ardee, Co. Louth, and employs approximately 14 in the manufacturing of accessories for the flooring industry. The parent Company has another separate subsidiary Company based in Carrickmacross where the workers are paid approximately €2 per hour more than at the Ardee Plant. The Union are seeking the have the same rates of pay at Ardee as currently apply in Carrickmacross.
- 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. At the Conciliation Conference the Company was asked to review their rates of pay in June, 2006, and as a gesture of good-will the Company would provide vouchers in the amount of €250 to staff. This was accepted by Management but rejected by the Union. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 20th October, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd February, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3.1 Both Companies are owned by a French Multi-National Organisation and both are involved in the manufacturing of specialist flooring equipment, such as tiles, skirting boards etc.
2. The work undertaken at the plant in Ardee is more difficult and more intensive than the work at Carrickmacross.
3. This dispute in relation to pay has been the subject of discussions between the Union and the Company for in excess of 5/6 years including Conciliation talks as far back as 2001.
4. The Company continue to acknowledge it as a legitimate grievance by continuing to meet with the Union and that the matter would be kept under review.
5. The Union rejects the Company's argument that this is a cost increasing claim under Sustaining Progress as this claim goes back to 2001 before Sustaining Progress was introduced
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Ardee Company and the Carrickmacross Company are two separate companies, albeit they have a common parent Company.
2. For operational reasons and in line with the needs of each of the business units, rates of pay and terms and conditions have been set with due regard to the prevailing business imperatives in each Company.
3. The work undertaken by the employees at Ardee is not comparable with that which is performed at Carrickmacross. For this reason it is not legitimate to suggest that labour costs in different businesses should be the same.
4. Management has given a commitment to review rates of pay in June of this year. This commitment stands and the review will be undertaken in line with the business situation at the time.
5. This is a cost increasing claim under the terms of Sustaining Progress. The final payment (2.5%) due under Sustaining Progress was applied in Ardee on 1st February, 2006, and as such this claim is precluded from hearing.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court recommends that the Company's offer, as outlined at the Conciliation Conference, be re-instated (including the voucher, which should be paid on acceptance). The review, however, should incorporate worker representation and should still take place no later than June, 2006.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th February, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.