FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HONEYWELL ENGINES SYSTEMS AND SERVICES - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Alleged 'anomalies' in relation to pay, pension, service holidays, bonus calculation and medical/sick pay scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim before the Court concerns anomalies in certain terms and conditions of employment between workers at the Company and its sister Technologies Plant. The anomalies relate to pay, pension, service holidays, bonus calculation and sick pay. The Company rejects the claim on the grounds that the terms at issue were concluded in the Technologies plant as part of an Annualised Hours Agreement negotiated with the Union to apply to operatives in that plant only. In 2000, negotiations opened with Management of both plants on a new Productivity Agreement based on an Annual Hours type concept. The Company withdrew from talks as they deemed the system was not suitable for their business. The Technologies plant continued with negotiations and concluded an agreement in 2002. Though the Company did not continue negotiations on productivity, it accepted the Union's proposal that there was a need for change and improvement. In March 2004, productivity talks re-opened on an Annualised Hours type agreement with the signing of the Terms of Reference. Talks continued up to October, 2005 when the Company's final proposals were rejected by the Union's members in a secret ballot. Negotiations were then discontinued by Management.
The dispute could not be 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 the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd March, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 11th September, 2007
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1While productivity has increased at the Technologies plant through the Annual Hours Agreement, productivity has also greatly improved at Honeywell Aerospace. This is proven by the increase in output against the reduction of Employees after 9/11. The productivity given by the Union's members since 9/11 far outweighs the cost of introducing the benefits sought.
2 The introduction of improved A.V.C.'s should be their members as a right in the absence of an improved Pension Scheme.
3 Both plants enjoy the same annual holiday entitlements with the same service holidays up to recently. In 2006 Management at the Technologies plant improved the service holidays by one day after ten years and another day after twenty-five years service. To be consistent, the two extra service days should be awarded to the Union's members in the Company. The Management, Union and members in both plants are governed by the same Agreement, therefore, should have the same rate of pay and the same benefits.
4 Until the Annualised Hours Agreement both plants had an annual bonus which consisted of one basic week's pay at Christmas and one at summer holidays. The workers at the Technologies plant now enjoy their week's salary which is made up of the overtime hours and their shift premium. The Members at Aerospace are only seeking their bonus on their shift allowance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The improvements in pay and conditions at the Technologies plant were part of the 2003 Annual Hours Agreement. That Agreement is not a comprehensive agreement covering all employees at both sites. It covers only production employees at the Technologies plant. The change to annual hours at the Technologies plant was given in direct return for major productivity improvements and a reduction in headcount.
2 The Union's claims are cost - increasing and are precluded by the terms of the agreement "Towards 2016".
3 The improvement in terms sought by the Union are not part of any restructuring agreement.
4 Concession of the claims will lead to knock-on claims from the remaining workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union referred a dispute to the Court on behalf of Production Operatives employed by Honeywell Aerospace claiming that anomalies have arisen in certain terms and conditions of employment between it and its sister company, Honeywell Turbo Technologies Limited. These anomalies relate to pay, pensions, service holidays, and bonus calculations. A claim in respect of the medical and sick pay schemes was settled between the parties and withdrawn at the Court hearing.
The Company rejected the claim and explained that the differences which have arisen between both plants relates to the introduction of an Annualised Hours Agreement which was entered into in the Honeywell Turbo Technologies plant, and therefore, cannot be regarded as anomalies.
In Labour Court Recommendation No: 17159 the Court stated:
- “The Court is conscious in this case of the changed situation in both plants since the Garrett Plant[Honeywell Turbo Technologies Limited]commenced operations in 1979 and the Engines and Systems plant[Honeywell Aerospace]in 1986, when the then agreement was extended to cover both facilities. While the single agreement may have worked well initially, it is clear to the Court that there are now significant differences in the businesses, with separate agreements now being discussed covering payment systems, which involves one plant considering the possibility of an annualised hours agreement.”
However, the Court notes that the Company is prepared to enter into discussions on improving the terms and conditions of employment on condition that this can be achieved on a cost neutral basis.
Accordingly, the Court supports the Company’s position and recommends that negotiations should commence between both parties on improving the terms of conditions, which are the subject matter of this claim, on a cost neutral basis.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd October 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.