FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAGEO IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Bonus claim
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is a subsidiary of Diageo Global Supply, introduced a new pay and reward scheme for its Employees at St. James's Gate, as part of its "Continuous Improvement" policy during 2003 which included a new structure called Total Reward Framework (TRF). To avail of TRF Workers had to agree to sever their links with National Wage Agreements and as a result of this stipulation approximately 200 members of the two Unions involved opted to remain outside TRF.
A TRF bonus of 10.2% was awarded for 2005 which led to a grievance amongst the Workers outside TRF following which the two Unions sought to find a mechanism or formula which would address what the members saw as an injustice, as this figure was substantially in excess of National Agreement increases.
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 the 22nd March, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 24th August 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A mechanism should be introduced that would allow all Employees to share more equally in the success of the Company and still remain within National Wage Agreements.
2. Such a formula would not lead to a cost-increasing claim and would therefore be compliant with the rules of "Towards 2016".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Both Unions were offered a choice for their Members, either TRF or the National Wage Agreement, and they chose the latter because of the guaranteed increases which were available.
2. If conceded, the extra costs to the Company would potentially be very high, as would the possible significant knock-on implications for other workers in other Diageo sites throughout the country.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and noting the provisions of both the local arrangements and "Towards 2016", the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th September 2007______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.