FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORD NA MONA HORTICULTURE LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay & Productivity
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to the introduction of a system of productivity-related pay. The Company is involved in the production of peat for retail which is seasonal in nature. The Company wishes to put in a system of pay which guarantees a specific hourly rate of pay for the General Operative grade (during production and on downtime).
The Union's contends that an interim arrangement currently exists that guarantees an hourly rate of €21.85 to the G.O. grade whether production is taking place or not and that any new system of pay determination cannot further reduce the workers earnings. It contends that management's proposals will result in a lower hourly rate of pay and longer working hours.
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 14th January, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1st July, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 Management has made every effort to erode the long standing pay arrangements within the Company. The practice over many years has been that periods of fall back are paid at a rate which includes shift premium and equates to €15.68 per hour. The Union cannot accept this rate as a guaranteed annual hourly rate of pay going forward as it will greatly reduce the real earnings potential of the workers.
2 Management's proposal to inrtroduce a flat 39 hour working week will also result in significant losses of earnings as the working week while on full shift has always been 45 hours per week.
3 Management contend that the workers have the potential to earn an hourly rate of pay well in excess of the current interim rate of pay if the Company's proposals on future production and productivity levels are acceptable. The Union is not sure that the production levels which the Company proposes are sustainable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is operating in an extremely competitive environment and cannot sustain the interim rate of pay currently being paid.
2 If the Company is to maintain current levels and attract new business it must remain competitive in the market place. Increased production capabilities and a sustainable system of pay determination going forward will greatly improve the Company's viability and increase the earnings potential of the workforce.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Company’s proposal to introduce a productivity-related pay arrangement to replace an interim fixed rate of pay, which was introduced in October 2008, pending a major upgrading of the production facility at the Kilberry site.
The Union dispute the proposals put forward by the Company stating that it will result in a loss of earnings for the workers and an increase in working hours.
The Court notes that the Union has no objection in principle to the introduction of a productivity-related pay arrangement. Therefore the Court recommends as a way forward in this dispute that an Industrial Engineer, nominated by the Union, should carry out an exercise to examine the Company’s proposals with a view to reaching agreement on the operation of an appropriate productivity-related pay arrangement for the Kilberry site.
The Court recommends that this exercise should be commenced as soon as possible and completed before 30th September 2010. In the event that there are any unresolved issues on the completion of the exercise they should be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st July 2010______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.