FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE LISHEEN MINE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Wage Rates- Laboratory Technicians
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court concerns the establishment of an agreed pay structure for the Union's members working as laboratory technicians for the Company. The Union are seeking to negotiate a pay structure with the Company for this grade. The Company currently set the pay rate for each technician on an individual basis with consideration given to skills, qualifications and the existing salaries paid in the area. It is the Union's argument that there are no mechanisms available to staff on lower rates of pay to achieve the higher rates available to some of their colleagues. It is the Company's position that a performance management system already exists, and which rewards staff for meeting targets and performing above expectation.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commision. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th December, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th May, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The Union is seeking to change the basic pay structure from an individually based structure to a negotiated pay structure that would allow staff to progress to the higher pay levels that the Company is currently paying.
2 All other grades represented by the Union have an agreed pay structure which has been subject to any increases awarded by the various national wage agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The starting salary for technicians was in the past established with reference to skills, qualifications and pay rates in comparative companies. The Company does not consider it appropriate to negotiate and agree a starting salary for future vacancies. There is a performance management system in place which rewards staff for meeting targets and performing above expectations.
2 The Company is operating in survival mode and is not in a position to take on cost increases. The Company has not cut salaries and has paid the latest national wage agreement as an act of faith in tough times and its commitment to the partnership arrangement.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is the Court's view that the pay determination system should be based on clearly discernible objective criteria. Having regard to that consideration, the Union should formulate a definitive claim, which should then be the subject of negotiations between the parties through normal industrial relations processes.
In making this recommendation the Court notes that the Union is recognised for collective bargaining purposes in respect of the workers associated with this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th May, 2009______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.