FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SLIGO DAIRIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY JIM KELLY) - AND - A WORKER (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Appeal against Rights Commissioner's Recommendation R-041641-IR/06/TB.
BACKGROUND:
2. Sligo Dairies is part of Connacht Gold Co-op which is involved in dairy processing, milk distribution, animal feeds, retail stores, livestock sales, property sales, meat products, wool trading and timber sawmilling. The Co-op employes 550 people directly and many more in transport distribution and forestry. The Co-op has had to introduce substantial restructuring and cost-reduction to remain competitive and its operations are undergoing major change in order to survive. As part of this restructuring a new Pay Grading Scheme was introduced in 2005 to remove old pay anomalies and 4 new grades were established, anyone who was deemed to be out-of-line with these rates was then brought up to the proper rate.
The matter was referred to a Rights Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On the 13th September, 2006, the Rights Commissioner issued his Recommendation as follows:
"Having considered the submissions of both parties I do not recommend in favour of the Union claim."
On the 20th October, 2006 the Worker appealed the Rights Commissioner's Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Claimant took on a new role in December 2001 as a store/yard person and was given a pay increase to reflect the additional responsibilities over and above those that he had while working as a machine operator.
2. In 2005 a review of pay rates was conducted by the Company, during which time the Claimant discovered that his former colleagues who were still working as machine operators, were now on the same rate of pay as he was.
3. The Claimant is seeking a return of the original differential and that this should be back-dated to March 2002 when his former colleagues (machine operators) caught up with his pay rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The differential referred to only lasted a total period of less than 4 months and was eliminated in March 2002.
2. The new Grading Structure when implemented superseded all previous agreements and anomalies and was agreed to by the Union.
3. If conceded it would lead to parity claims from other employees who are on the same rate of pay as the Claimant for the last five years.
DECISION:
It seems clear to the Court that agreement was reached between the parties in 2005 on a grading structure for pay purposes. This structure involved the creation of four grades and it must have been intended that all employees would be paid by reference to one of them. The Union's claim is, in effect, for the creation of a fifth grade.
The Court can understand the Claimant's sense of grievance. However, he should have raised the issue now before the Court at the time the new agreement was under negotiation. The Court does not accept that it would be either desirable or reasonable to recommend that those negotiations be reopened at this time.
The Court does accept that some uncertainty may have been created as to where the Claimant's post fitted within the new structure. For this reason the Court further recommends that the parties should have further discussions with a view to exploring the possibility of accommodating the Claimant in reverting to his former role as a machine operator should he so desire.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th December, 2007.______________________
JF.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.