FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRAUN ORAL B (NEWBRIDGE) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Parity Claim (Terms And Conditions)
BACKGROUND:
2. In October 2005, the Company was purchased by Procter and Gamble. In addition to the Company's Newbridge plant, Procter and Gamble also operates a plant in Nenagh. The Union is seeking that the workers in the Newbridge plant should have the same terms and conditions as the workers in the Nenagh plant. The Union claims that the workers in Nenagh are paid 20-25% more wages, have higher shift rates and a more generous sick pay scheme than the workers in Newbridge.
This 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 14th December, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6th June, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Workers in Newbridge are paid 20-25% less than those in Procter and Gamble's Newbridge plant.
2. The Company sick pay scheme which operates in Newbridge pays only 90% of wages for six weeks - inclusive of social welfare payments - and irrespective of service. The sick pay schme which operates in other Procter and Gamble plants in Ireland provides, however, for up to 26 weeks' sick pay after ten years' service.
3.It is not acceptable that the terms and conditions of Procter and Gamble workers in Ireland can vary depending on which plant they are employed in.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Company pay rates are above the market average for the area and the sick pay scheme is equal to or better than competitor companies in Ireland.
2. As this claim is cost increasing it is clearly precluded under the terms of 'Towards 2016'.
3.Concession of this claim will have serious consequences for the future of the Newbridge plant.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the Court finds no grounds whatever on which it could recommend concession of the Union's claim and recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
26th June, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.