FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HICKEY'S (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (1). Basic Pay-Increase To Reflect Increased Productivity (2) Differential (Supervisor - V- G.O.)
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns two claims by the Union. Firstly, for an increase in basic pay for increased productivity on behalf of its members employed by the Company. Secondly, that a set differential should exist between the supervisor and general operative rate of pay. The Union argue that following an expansion in their business, the Company have not taken into consideration the increased workload and the increase in responsibilities their members have had to take on. It is not normal and ongoing change as defined by Towards 2016. Regarding the second claim, the Union has no objection to whatever rate the Company apply to the supervisory position, it is the differential between the supervisor rate and the general operative rate they want maintained. The Company argue that extra staff have been recruited as the business expanded and that the increase in productivity was actually attributable to improved efficiencies. With regard to the differential between supervisor and general operative, the Company state that no specific rate had ever been agreed for the supervisor position.
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 could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 18th December, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th October, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Company has opened four new premises since August, 2004. No additional staff have been employed to cover the increased workload in the area Claimants work. The Union's members do not view the changes as normal and ongoing under the terms of Towards 2016.
2 The increase in work has been substantive. There has been an increase in the average number of pallets from 454 for 2004 to 1190 for 2005. The average number for the first ten months of 2006 was 1131.
3 A maintenance in the differential between supervisor and general operative is sought. The difference in the percentage increase in wages for the two grades from 2003 to 2005 was 10.9%. The average increase for a general operative over this period was 3.4% and for a supervisor 14.3%.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company's position is that this claim is precluded under Clause 1.4 of Towards 2016. The Union claim for an increase in pay to reflect increased productivity is totally without basis. Most of the employees role has been simplified and less productivity per employee is actually required. This is substantiated by the decrease in overtime that is performed in comparison to pre 1998.
2 The Company has endeavoured to illustrate to the Union that its rates of pay are substantially above the provisions of The Drapery, Footwear and Allied Trades JLC.
3 The role of the supervisor viz a vie that in 2003 is substantially different. The type of candidate with the relevant experience and qualifications that the Company is attempting to recruit has dictated an appropriate increase in the rate of pay attached to the role.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court finds as follows
Pay Increase
This claim is one which is debarred under the terms of the pay provisions of Towards 2016 and cannot be conceded.
Supervisor's Differential
No case has been established by the Union to support this claim and it cannot therefore succeed.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st October, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.