DIR072

• “As confirmed in the employment agreement between production operators and the Company, the basic rate of pay of production operators is totally guaranteed and not at all related to performance. A production operator is guaranteed to receive the same basic pay consistently from one week to another one”

• “The Company is committed to performance related pay. The Company respectfully submits that to have all operators on the same level of pay would be inconsistent with a performance environment. Performance related pay provides the Company with the ability to reward employees performance on an individual basis.”

At the hearing before the Court on 19th April 2006 the Union submitted rates of pay in respect of seven employments which it regarded as comparable. The company submitted the results of a survey of rates in employments which it considered comparable. Based on these submissions each side made supplemental submissions, after the hearing, commenting on the accuracy and relevance of the information furnished to the Court by the other side.

The Court issued its recommendations on 24th May having fully considered all of the material with which it had been provided.

Having reviewed the information which was then available to it, together with the information furnished by the parties in relation to the current application, the Court is satisfied that there is no material inaccuracies in the information upon which it grounded the recommendation.

Accordingly, and since the recommendation has not resolved the dispute, the Court is satisfied that it should proceed to make a determination in the same terms as the Recommendation. The Court therefore determines as follows: -

Pay.

• A central argument in the Union’s case is that the Company’s pay determination system is out of line with accepted standards in that it is based solely on performance assessment and that there is no rate for the job. Having regard to all of the information with which it was provided the Court accepts that the predominant practice in the sector (whether the pharmaceutical industry as a whole or the solid dosage sector is looked at) is that employees are paid by reference to a basic rate for the job. The Court is further satisfied that where performance is taken into account in pay determination it is by way of bonus in addition to basic pay. Accordingly, the Court accepts that the pay determination system of the Company is out of line with normal standards.
  
  The Company told the Court that average salaries for production workers in 2006 was €29,949. It would appear from the information provided by the Union that actual basis rates (apart from starting rates) range from €534 per week (€27,768 p.a) to €583.85 (€30,360 p.a.).
  
  The Court determines that this pay structure should be incorporated in a formal pay scale with increments. The scale should be as follows:
  
  Year one = €534 per week
  
  After one year = €564 per week
  
  After two years = € 593per week
  
  
  Where employees are currently paid rates in excess of these rates they should retain their current arrangements on a red-circled basis.
  

  Bonus.

  The Court did not recommend any change in the current arrangements regarding the Company’s bonus schemes. Any disputes concerning the application of the scheme to individual employees should be processed, if necessary, through the internal grievance procedure, as amended in accordance with this determination.
  

  Future Increases.

  In future pay adjustment should have regard to the provisions of National Pay Agreements and should maintain the concept of a basis rate for the job.
  

  Annual Leave.

  
  The Court determines that employees who work on 4 cycle shifts and work a 42 hour week, should be afforded a choice between accepting overtime payments as at present for the additional 3 hours or of receiving payment at double time for two hours and additional annual leave in lieu of the third hour.
  

  Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.

  
  The Union claimed that the current internal procedures for the processing of issues relating to individual grievance and disciplinary maters are inadequate in that they do not provide for representation of employees by a trade union in appropriate cases.
  
  The Court determines that the employer put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which conforms with the general provisions of the Code of practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000) and in particular that appropriate provision be made for representation by an employee representative as provided by paragraph 4.4 of the Code.
  
  Any dispute on this issue should be processed through the procedures provided for by section 43(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
  

  Code of Practice on Victimisation.

  The Company should put in place procedures which comply with the Code of Practice on Victimisation (S.I. 139 of 2004). Any dispute on this issue should be processed through the procedures provided for by section 43(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
  

  Canteen.

  The Company should provide canteen facilities within 3 months from the date of this recommendation.
  

  Implementation.

  The provisions of this Determination in relation to pay and matters associated thereto should be implemented with effect from the date specified in Recommendation LCR18582. Other provisions of this determination should be implemented within one month from the date on which it is issued.