FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAGEO IRELAND (GUINNESS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for a 3% pay increase on behalf of approximately 18 Laboratory Technicians/Analysts for co-operation with the introduction of a Continuous Improvement Plan/Programme (CIP). The 3% was first paid to members of the Crafts Unions and General Operative Grades in 2003. The 18 workers concerned are members of Administrative, Supervisory and Sales Branch of the Union.
The CIP involved a proposal for the Laboratory Technicians to integrate into "intact teams" i.e. cross-skilling across production areas. The Laboratory Technicians rejected the proposal, citing health and safety concerns and the fact that they would be required to work a night shift 1 in 6 as opposed to 1 in 9.
The Company refused to pay an increase to the workers concerned and the matter was referred to a conciliation conference in July, 2003. At the conference the Company requested that the workers submit job descriptions to a Staff Assessment Panel set up earlier to see if the workers merited a pay increase. In the event the job descriptions were not submitted.
Prior to 2003 staff received a fixed-rate increment yearly and National Wage Agreements also applied. In 2003, as part of discussions on the CIP, workers were offered an alternative method of pay, the Total Reward Framework (TRF). New staff were required to enter the TRF but the workers concerned chose to stay with the increments and the National Wage Agreements.
Another conciliation conference took place in 2006. Again the workers were asked to submit job descriptions and again this did not happen. As no agreement could be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 18th of January, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th of April, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The performance targets identified in the CIP have been significantly exceeded by the Laboratory Technicians e.g. the requirement for effective team work. The Technicians have attended team briefings, team-building exercises etc. and continue to co-operate with team leaders on a 24-hour basis.
2. The Technicians have also co-operated with the changes in the roster arrangements by changing from a 1 in 9 night-shift-cycle to 1 in 6 and by working additional Bank Holidays and at Christmas.
3. The Technicians have no confidence with the internal assessment process currently in existence in the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The CIP represented a significant investment by the Company. The Technicians were the only group to reject the original proposals and this made the implementation and management of the "intact teams" more difficult.
2. None of the staff categories within the James' Gate Brewery received pay increases during the CIP in 2003. No exceptions can be made, especially for a group submitting a pay claim which rejected the Company's proposals on an integrated work structure.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of Towards 2016. The Technicians chose to be paid by the National Wage Agreements rather than the TRF implemented in 2003. The Technicians' pay and conditions of employment are very generous.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court is of the view that the best way of progressing the matter is for the group in question to make use of the existing internal procedure and to have the size and scope of the Laboratory Technicians role, examined by the Staff Assessment Panel, as previously offered by the Company and as agreed at conciliation. The Court, therefore, recommends that this process be entered into as early as possible and that this should decide what increase, if any, may be due to the Technicians.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st May, 2007______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.