FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOVUM OVERSEAS (REPRESENTED BY ESA CONSULTANTS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Lead-hands role
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in producing, designing and building refrigeration systems. It has been in business since 1954 and employs 82 factory floor staff. The Union's case relates to the role/pay rate of the four Lead-hands in the Company. The Lead-hands oversee the daily operation of business and they are located in four distinct areas - (1) main line, (2) aran line, (3) xtreme line and (4) press shop. The Union contends that as per collective agreements the four roles are paid at the same rate of pay for the Lead-hand grade. The dispute concerns the Company's decision to increase the rate of pay of the Lead-hand in the press shop without consulting the Union; he currently earns €0.76 per hour more than the three other Lead-hands. As a result the Union is seeking an increase in pay for the other three Lead-hands, something the Company is unwilling to do. The Company's view is that it pays employees according to their skills.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. At the conciliation hearing the Company proposed having an independent evaluation of the Lead-hand roles. However, as the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4th November, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th January, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. If a pay rise or restructuring of roles is necessary it should be dealt with through the agreed industrial relations process. This did not happen in this case.
2.The previous incumbent in the press shop role had sought a pay rise based on his skills set but this was refused by the Company which stated that there was a set pay rate for Lead-hands. When he retired and the job was advertised there was no change in the description of the work or any increased payment. When the current Lead-hand in the press shop took up the position he negotiated a personal rate for the job that was greater than the collectively agreed rate. The Company contends that the pay increase was because of his skills, specifically tool setting, but the previous incumbent also had this skill.
3. All four of the Lead-hands have unique skills but the pay rates have always been the same.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The difference in pay is justified on the basis of the different requirements between a Lead-hand on the production floor and a Lead-hand in the press shop. The Lead-hand in the press shop incorporates additional duties to those of a Lead-hand on the production floor. In this case it relates to the tool setting duties in the press shop which are unique to that area (the Company supplied details of the different skills involved in each areas).
2. The claim is cost-increasing under the terms of Towards 2016. Concession of it will certainly lead to knock-on claims across the Company, something the Company cannot afford, and could lead to lay-offs or even redundancies.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this dispute.
On the basis of the evidence presented the Court is satisfied that Management has, without justification, breached the collective agreement on pay rates for Lead-hands employed within the Company. The Court, therefore, finds that there is merit in the Union’s claim for a restoration of the terms of the collective agreement.
To do this by simply increasing the rate of pay of all of the Lead-hands to bring them back into line with each other would inevitably give rise to a series of claims from other workers that would most likely lead to significant redundancies and bring about severe trading difficulties for the company.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the matter be addressed and the collectively agreed pay rates be restored to the Lead-hand grade at the next adjustment to pay levels, howsoever this comes about.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
27th January, 2011______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.