FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WYETH NUTRITIONALS IRELAND - AND - UNITE / TEEU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Pay parity claim in respect of shift premium
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Unions on behalf of the Craft Mechanical Group for pay parity. In 2004, the parties concluded an agreement covering a range of work practice changes and the introduction of an annualised hours pay model. In recognition of the fact that the group of workers concerned were the first to enter into the new arrangements it was agreed that if any group agreed more beneficial terms, those better terms would apply to all groups. It is the Unions case that in 2005 the Electricians in the Company negotiated better terms which enhanced their annual salary. The Company reject this claim and its position is that a calculation error was made in the overtime payments of two electricians.
The dispute could not be 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 4th January, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26th May, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The calculations contained in the agreement between Electricians and Management were formally agreed prior to their ballot being taken. The salary has been paid consistently to the Electricians. It is time for the Company to honour its agreement with this group of workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company cannot apply a pay calculation to other groups, including the Craft Mechanical Group, where the calculation is based on an error. The Company is seeking the removal of the error and consequent adjustment to annual salaries for Electricians and as a result it will not apply the payment to an other group on site.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company accepts that its agreement with the Union provides for parity of treatment between fitters and electricians. The Company contends that the overtime payments in issue were made in error to the Electricians. They say that the correction of this error is currently in process and a hearing in the matter is pending before the Court.
The situation is clear. If the overtime is withdrawn from Electricians the Unions can have no valid claim. If it is not the terms of the collective agreement should be applied.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
June, 2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.