FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABBOTT COOTEHILL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Changes in work practices
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to proposed work changes. Management has proposed that some quality checks be carried out by packing operators as opposed to Laboratory Technicians. Management currently proposes to re-assign some duties creating the opportunity for greater efficiencies going forward. The Union rejects the proposal on the basis that quality Control checks attract a higer rate that packing and that any increased responsibility should result in additional wage payments.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 1st October, 2009 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Aact, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th March, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Quality Checking role carries a higer evel of responsibility and pay. If the packing operators are required to increase their levels of responsibility, it is only fair that they receive the appropriate rate of pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 Management does not apply National Wage Agreements but it does have its own method of pay determination which currently allows for annual increases (up to September 2010) of 5%. In return for these increases an agreement exists for co-operation with ongoing change. In the current circumstances Management contend that the changes required fall within those already agreed with the Union and do not feel the claim has merit.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the transfer of inspection functions proposed by the Company are not of sufficient significance to warrant additional payments. Nor does the Court accept that this type of transfer is encompassed by the provision in the Company / Union agreement dealing with the transfer of staff to higher duties.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case including the recent history of pay negotiation and the commitment made by staff to cooperate with ongoing change in return for enhanced increases, the Court cannot see any reasonable basis upon which it could recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th April 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.