FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GERNORD-ARDEE EXTRUSIONS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Re-Hearing arising from LCR 18496
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the parties concerning a claim for pay parity between workers employed at Gerflor-Ardee Extrusions and Gerflor Ltd, located in Carrickmacross, Co Monaghan. The dispute had been the subject of a previous Labour Court hearing and the subsequent Labour Court Recommendation had the Company's offer be accepted and that a review should take place no later than June 2006, incorporating worker representation.
The Unions position is that the claim for pay parity is fair and reasonable as both sets of workers are engaged in the same type of work. The Union also contends that the Company have not committed to the review and have frustrated the process in relation to reaching an amicable solution.
The Company position is that it is operating in an extremely competitive market and increases in costs will ineviatbly effect its viability going forwrd. It also claims that the claim is cost increasing and, is therefore, precluded under National Wage Agreements.
The dispute was not 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 following the issuing of the LCR 18496 the matter was referred to the Labour Court for Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th September 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 This issue has been ongoing for many years. It is unacceptable that workers engaged in like work are paid substantially less than co-workers at another of the Company's plants.
2 It is accepted by management that the level of work carried out at the Ardee plant is more difficult and labour intensive than the Carrickmacross plant and the lower hourly rate of pay in Ardee is unjustifiable.
3 Management have continually stated over a number of years that the matter is under review and would be resolved but no acceptable proposals for resolution have been forthcoming.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is operating in an extremely competitive market and cannot sustain any additional costs.
2 The Company made a reasonable offer to resolve outstanding issues which was rejected by the workers.
2 The claim is cost increasing and, is therefore, precluded under National Wage Agreements
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the view of the Court that the offer made by the Company locally on 30th April 2007 should be accepted by the Union as a significant effort to correct any anomalies, but that the discussions proposed by the Company should ideally result in further erosion of anomalies by 2009, with particular reference to (a) the position of Senior Helper and Helper in Ardee and (b) some of the allowances particular to the Carrickmacross plant.
If discussions do not satisfactorily resolve the matter by the end of June 2008, the parties may refer back the anomaly to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
9th November, 2007______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.