FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PFIZER (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - 17 LEAD HANDS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Lead Hand rate of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the question of how the rate of pay for the role of Lead Hand should be handled following the discontinuation of this role.
In July 2007, a Labour Court Recommendation 18945 issued which determined that the Pfizer Analogue Agreement was the appropriate mechanism for resolving the then current dispute. The Court also recommended that the Union and the Company should meet locally to resolve outstanding issues, one of which was the proposed method for dealing with the Lead Hand rate of pay. If agreement was not forthcoming, the outstanding issues could then be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
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 17th January, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th May, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union contends that it is inappropriate that the Company should seek to deprive the existing Lead Hand of their appropriate rate of pay given that the Lead Hand position is a long established and existing grade within the Company and is fundamental to the existing structures.
2.The Union maintains that the Lead Hands need to be red circled, given that any reductions in their rates of pay have wider implications for their existing terms and conditions of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company states that the role of Lead Hand no longer exists and therefore there is no justification for any colleague to receive this higher rate of pay going forward.
2. The Company has always stated in discussions that it was willing to compensate the operators currently in receipt of the Lead Hand payment.
3.The Company believe that red circling these operators will only serve to undermine the new Process Team structure and cause consternation and unrest with all other operators who will be doing the same job.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case was referred to the Court on the basis that, by agreement, the Lead Hand function is being discontinued. Consequently the only issue in dispute between the parties concerns the appropriate method of dealing with the additional payment applicable to the former holders of the Lead Hand role.
The abolition of this role is part of an agreed restructuring of the Company's organisation model for the purpose of improving its competitiveness. Having regard to this objective, the number in receipt of the disputed payment and the age profile of those involved, the Court does not consider the retention of the payments on a pure red-circled basis as a viable option.
The Court notes that Option B, proposed by the Company, provides for the gradual abolition of the differential by applying future increases by way of a lump sum rather than adjusting the rate paid to those affected. This arrangement would allow the Bio-Chemical Operator rate to "catch-up" over time. The Court recommends that this approach should be accepted with the following modifications:-
Until the Bio-Chemical Operator rate equalises with the Lead Hand rate, 50% of all increases should be paid on the rate. The remainder should be paid by way of lump sum. This lump sum should reflect the value of the remaining portion of the increase if it were applied to all elements of pay.
The Court notes that the abolition of the Lead Hand payments will impact adversely on the pension entitlements of those affected. So as to ameliorate this effect the Court recommends that a lump sum, equal to the weekly value of the payment multiplied by the number of years the individual has been in receipt of the payment, should be placed in an AVC scheme for the benefit of each of the current Lead Hands.
This recommendation is made on the understanding that there will be full cooperation with the restructuring of the Company's operations, including the abolition of the Lead Hand role.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th June, 2008______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.