FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1); INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT; 1990 PARTIES : MTL MOOREPARK TECHNOLOGY LTD. - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. The introduction of IPC to assess pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between MTL Moorepark Technology Ltd and SIPTU in relation to the applicable rate of pay being applied to General Operatives employed by the Company.
The Union is claiming that an independent assessment be carried as to whether the Dairy sector is the appropriate comparator for pay purposes.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the Dairy sector is the appropriate comparator and that concession of the claim to carry out an assessment and subsequent
wage increases would be cost increasing and precluded under Sustaining Progress and would also affect the Company's viability.
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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st September, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of May, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An independent assessment is required to establish the appropriate comparator for pay purposes at the Company. If the a different sector is accepted as the appropriate comparator, rates of pay should be increased accordingly.
2. Given the complexities of the work and the fact that the pay rates may be out of line with the appropriate comparators, the claim is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Dairy sector is the appropriate comparator for pay rates in the Company. The issue of carrying out an independent assessment was discussed at Board level and was deemed not to be necessary.
2. The claim is cost increasing and precluded under Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the claim before the Court is cost increasing and is precluded by the stabilising provision of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress.
Accordingly, the Court cannot recommend that the claim be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th May, 2006______________________
AH/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.