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 Nash |
1. Hearing arising from LCR19866.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case, which was previously before the Court in July 2010, concerns the Company's plan to re-introduce productivity-related pay to replace the previous payment-by-result (PBR) productivivty-related pay arrangements which were replaced with an interim fixed rate of pay arrangement in October 2008 and which currently applies. In LCR19866 the Court recommended that a Union-nominated Industrial Engineer should examine the Company's proposals with a view to reaching agreement on the re-introduction of productivity-related pay. On 5th November, 2010 the Company referred the dispute back to the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on 28th January, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1The Company is seeking to erode long-standing pay arrangements within the Company. The Union cannot accept this as the Company's proposals will greatly reduce the real earnings potential of the workers.
2 The Workers have consistently met production targets and can see no reason for changing the current pay system.
3 The Company refuses to look at any other mechanism for reducing costs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Union is failing to comply with the Labour Court's recommendation that agreement be reached on productivity-related pay.
2 The Company is operating in an increasingly-competitive export market.
3. The introduction ofproductivity-related pay is vital for the Company's furture.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter 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 pending major upgrading of the production facility at the Company's Kilberry site. In accordance with the provisions of Labour Court Recommendation No: 19866 both parties have referred the matter back to the Court as it has not been resolved following the recommended examination by an Industrial Engineer of the Company’s proposals.
Having considered the submissions of both sides the Court notes that in an effort to find a resolution to the dispute between the parties the Company had improved its proposals by increasing the rate of the production fallback rate. An interim fixed rate of pay arrangement has now been in place since October 2008 and the Court recommends that this arrangement should cease with effect from 14th March 2011. Furthermore, the Court notes that the bonus payment of 25% of the basic rate at standard performance applies in all the Company’s sites as agreed by all Unions involved in the Company. The Court therefore is of the view that that bonus payment should be accepted in any final set of arrangements agreed.
As pointed out in Labour Court Recommendation No: 19866 the Court notes that the Union has no objection in principle to the introduction of a productivity-related pay arrangement, however, the workers concerned continue to have difficulties with the proposals submitted by the Company. On that basis the Court is of the view that the matter requires some final discussions between the parties and recommends that these discussions should be conducted with the assistance of a Facilitator to address those concerns. The Court will nominate a Facilitator to assist the parties. Due to the length of time already taken to deal with this matter, the Court recommends that the matter should be concluded in an expeditious manner and be completed by 1st March 2011.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2nd February, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.