FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BERU ELECTRONICS GMBH (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. 1. Scale/Rate of Pay; 2. Service Pay; 3. Shift Allowance; 4. Annual Leave/Calculation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, established in 1985 and based in Tralee, Co. Kerry, is involved in the manufacture of glowplugs for diesel engines. The Company supplies products to the automotive industry worldwide. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of twenty of its members employed by the Company as technicians. The issues in dispute relate to Scale/ Rates of Pay, Service Pay, Shift Allowance and Annual Leave/Calculation.
- The Union's claim before the Court includes the following:
(A) Rates of Pay/Scale of Pay:
The Union is seeking to have pay increases applied on a uniform date in line with the operators regarding National Wage Agreements. Currently, the members have their increases applied at their individual review dates.
The shop steward had increases totalling 8% to his salary during the years of the PPF instead of the cumulative increases of 17%. Addressing the backlog is being sought because he has fallen substantially behind in his salary progression.
It is the Company position that it operates an agreed pay scale covering the first 3 years of a Technician's employment after leaving College, with six monthly reviews. This is agreed with the in house Setter Representative Group. Following this training-in phase the Technician increases are based on an annual performance review. Management also maintains that this performance review scheme forms part of the Company /Union Agreement signed off by the parties in October 2002 and that this is a cost-increasing claim, which is specifically precluded under Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress. It is the Company position that it wishes to retain the performance review scheme referred to above.
With regard to the shop steward the Company has calculated the increases that he received. The Company position is that information shows that he received increases in excess of those which would have accrued under PPF and as such there are no outstanding increases due.
(B) Service Pay:
The Union is seeking to have service pay which is currently being paid to operators at BERU and which is also prevalent through many similar industries extended to its members as follows:
After 1 year - €6.35 per week
2 years - €12.70 per week
5 years - €17.10 per week
10 years - €20.42 per week.
It is the Company position that where service pay does apply in the Company it was introduced as part of a negotiated agreement and was in exchange for the introduction of a significant cost-reduction initiative. The Company also maintains that this is a cost-increasing claim precluded under Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress.
(C) Shift Allowances:
The Union is seeking a traditional rotation shift premium of 33.33% for all shifts. The current situation is that there is no premium for days (6am -2pm), 16.6% for evenings (2pm - 10pm) and 33% for nights (10pm - 6am) and this equates at present to 16.5% premium for each of the three shifts currently.
The Company also maintains that this is a cost increasing claim precluded under Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress. Whilst the Company did make an offer regarding this matter at local level, it is maintained that the offer was strictly without prejudice to the formal position of the Company and was only put forward on the basis that it would be cost neutral, thus the requirement that concessions be provided on the sick pay scheme. This original proposal was rejected and it is, therefore, the Company's position that the offer was withdrawn and is without any further status.
(D) Overtime Premia:
The members currently get time and a half for the hours 6am - 8am. The Union is seeking to have this changed to double time in line with the operators.
It is the Company position that the applicable overtime premia is stated and agreed in the Company / Union Agreement and as such will not be considered for amendment. The Company also maintains that this is a cost increasing claim precluded under Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress.
(E) Performance-Related Bonus Scheme:
The Union is seeking to have the present bonus schemes structured in such a way that the members can fully understand how they are being applied. In this regard they are seeking clarity on:
(1) Clear Targets on how bonus is calculated;
(2) The criteria being used in the calculation of same; and
(3) Defined mechanisms for calculation which members fully understand and can aspire to achieving maximum results.
The Company maintains that the operator bonus scheme is largely based on a time study system which, given the nature of their work, would not translate to the Technician grade. The Company does consult with the Setter Representative Group on the structure of the bonus system for Technicians and that it is transparent with clear targets.
(F) Annual Leave Calculation:
Currently the member's annual leave with regard to bonus and shift premium is averaged over the full year. The members are seeking to have overtime and shift bonus premium and bonus for the previous 13 weeks taken into account when calculating holiday pay entitlements at times of holidays.
It is the Company position that the Union previously agreed to the current method of calculation of annual leave and the Company is not willing to revisit that agreement.
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 25th October, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Salaries are totally without structure and as there is no set rate for the job. There is no set starting point or progression which the members can aspire to reach at agreed points of time. The shift premia being applied in BERU are out of line with other Companies researched because there is no provision for shift premiums on days even though the members are contracted to working a three shift system.
2. The service pay is being applied to one section of the workforce and the members are being excluded. This also applies to time and a half for hours of 6am - 8am being applied to the members and double time to operators when both work groups work the same unsocial hours.
3. The annual leave calculation should take into account the members' average earnings for the previous thirteen weeks. It is at these times that people require their usual salaries due to the extra expenses involved when people are on annual leave.
4. Regarding the bonus schemes in operation, the Court is requested to recommend that the Company engage with the Union in a joint exercise with a view to making the bonus systems more defined and removing any obstacles to achieving full bonus. If bonus systems are to reward operators for performance then operators should clearly understand what is required and be in control of their own performance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Beru Electronics Tralee is very competitive in its overall package provided to Setter Technicians having reviewed the existing terms and conditions of employment within five Comparator Companies in the Mid West Region.
2. The majority of Technicians, (approximately 54 of 72), are in agreement with the Company on the terms and conditions of employment, understand the competitive nature of the business and continue to work with the Company and discuss and negotiate improvements under the Setter Representative Group.
3. There is a genuine concern among these Technicians that if the excessive claims submitted by the Union on behalf of only a minority of Technicians are conceded in the Court, it will impact severely on the ability of the Company to sustain employment in the Tralee plant and similar employment is just not available in the area.
4. We would ask the Court to reject these claims on the basis of their cost increasing impact on the viability of the operation in Tralee and its need to sustain valuable employment in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns a number of claims submitted by the Union on behalf of Technicians in its membership. These claims were lodged on 5th March 2003 and have been the subject of protracted negotiations between the parties. At a Conciliation Conference in August 2005 in an effort to process the matter the Industrial Relation Officer of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) submitted a proposal to both parties to have an independent evaluation exercise carried out to assess all terms and conditions of employment. The proposal was agreed by both sides and recommended for acceptance but was rejected by the members who expressed concern at the length of time it was taking to have their grievances addressed.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the evaluation exercise proposed by the Industrial Relation Officer of the LRC is the appropriate way to address the issues before the Court and therefore recommends that it should be carried out and completed within a three-month timeframe.
In the event that there are any outstanding issues following this exercise, they may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st November, 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.