FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAGEO IRELAND - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Grading and Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for a personal merit award of 5% to 26 Craft Process Technicians (Electrical and Mechanical). In 1995 an agreement to resolve a strike by craftsmen included an agreement by the Company to have discussions with the Union on the claimants' moving beyond Grade C, in the context of Plan 2000 -a rationalisation/productivity programme which covered the period 1997-2000 (LCR 14858 refers). In fact the issue was not addressed until 2003 during the following programme called Continuous Improvement (CI). As part of the CI proposals the Company offered for craftsmen an award of 3% for "Beyond C" with retrospection to June, 2000 resulting in an annual increase for craftsmen and lump sum payment of €3,600. In addition to the "Beyond C" payment of 3% the Company introduced a new grade of Process Technician which involved a further pay increase of 3% with retrospection to July, 2003. The craftsmen were independently assessed as "Beyond C" and these increases were applied. Finally the Company introduced an individual performance pay system of 1.5 % in line with Labour Court Recommendation LCR 18043. The Union does not accept the Company's position and argued that the increases outlined by the Company were not related to its long standing claim to move "Beyond C" and that other workers in the Company had received similar increases. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th April, 2006 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 27th September, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Local agreements supported by Labour Court recommendations relating to progression "Beyond C" have been in place since 1997. The claimants have been involved in every improvement initiative since that time despite seeing other employees consistently moving through pay scales . They believed that a system of individual assessment would be put in place through which they could be rewarded.
2. The 3% so called "Beyond C " payment was made to various non craft groups within the Brewery regardless of whether or not they met the criteria.
3. In the years 1997 to 2003, the claimants received no increases above National Wage Agreements. Yet this group of workers who maintain increasingly complex plants and processes have been independently assessed as having "developed impressively" during the period. It is unacceptable that they were treated less favourably than every other group and category on site.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company provided substantial increase during the CI in recognition of the Union's claim for a level "Beyond C" and introduced a new grade of Process Technician and individual performance payments. Pay progression arising from these increases amounts to 10.5%, application dates ranging from June, 2000, July, 2003 and July, 2006. These increases, taking into account inflation at the time and payments of 32% under NWA's, are significant. The claimants' remuneration package excluding various no-pay benefits is considerable.
2. The Company was clear in negotiations with all groups during CI that it would not consider any further increases in costs beyond those agreed under various Change Plans and as provided for under National Wage Agreements.
3. The Court in LCR 18043 has already recommended on this claim and the Company has applied the terms of the recommendation i.e an increase in the performance related pay element agreed under CI from 3% over three years to 4.5 % over three years.
4. Any concession of the claim would immediately result in a claim from 36 SIPTU members in the Brewery who have accepted LCR 18043 on a resolution of their "Beyond C" claim. In addition 18 retired Craft and 38 of retired SIPTU employees would seek retrospective payments and consequent increases in their pension. Concession of the claim would also instigate a claim from GSU members who have accepted an alternative method of remuneration, the Total Reward Framework, which provides for individual assessment and when offered to TEEU was rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions and responses of both parties. It is of the view that, taking all circumstances into account, the application of the terms of LCR 18043 to this group adequately addresses their position vis a vis "Beyond C", in as much as this further increased earning potential by 1.5%.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
14th November, 2006
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.