FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PPI ADHESIVE PRODUCTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay Differentials
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was established over 35 years ago, manufactures self-adhesive tapes for the computer and medical industries use and employs 121 at two sites in the Waterford Industrial Estate. Three of the four Laboratory Technicians employed by the Company claim that there is a pay disparity issue regarding their income scale when it is compared with other Companies. The Management disputes this and claims that the Laboratory Technicians are in fact paid at the top-end of the scale.
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 30th January, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th November, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Laboratory Technicians are all on different rates of pay for effectively doing the same job. This disparity in pay will never be equalised and will ultimately create a dis-incentivised workforce.
2. When account is taken of the incremental pay scales of comparator companies versus the current pay scale within the Company a substantial adjustment is warranted. The increase in pay will not conflict with "Towards 2016" as these are 'newly organised workers'.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has complied with National Pay Agreements and the pay scale now in place reflects length of service and historical ad hoc practices which are now ended.
2. The comparators used in the Union's exercise cannot be considered valid as the Laboratory Technicians employed by the Company do not hold any qualifications and are not science graduates.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the view of the Court, the Claimant's salaries are at or above the market rates and their rates have arisen from historical reasons. In all the circumstances, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
24th November, 2008______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.