FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KRAFT FOODS - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Proposed Harmonisation of Terms and Conditions of Staff Grades
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to proposed harmonisation of terms and conditions of employment. There are two staff categories within the organisation; Cadbury staff and Kraft Food staff. Both groups of staff have different terms and conditions which management contends must be aligned in terms of salary scales, salary progression and job grading going forward. The Union's position is that the Cadbury staff should retain their salary scales and progression. It also contends that a job evaluation is required prior to any agreement on future job grading.
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 13th September 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 30th October, 2012
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union does not accept the proposals put forward by management. Both groups should retain their separate salary scales and methods of salary progression going forward. Additionally, the Union should remain involved through consultation in the job grading process. It is unacceptable for management to make unilateral decisions on issues in dispute without proper discussions with the Union.
2 The Company has not supplied adequate information to the Union in relation to the awarding of increases to other grades of staff (Clerical and Administrative) and the requirement to move to the Kraft merit system of pay. As a result the Union cannot consult its members until it is fully informed of management's intentions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 All employees of the Company are employed by Kraft and as a result the Kraft merit system of pay is appropriate for implementation. In addition, two separate systems of pay determination is inappropriate and unsustainable going forward.
2 The Company does not consider it appropriate to have the Union involved in job grading. Any disputes that arise can be dealt with through procedures with Union involvement once a grievance has been lodged.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Company’s proposals to harmonise terms and conditions of employment for Clerical & Administration staff following the takeover of Cadbury Ireland Limited in February 2010. The Company stated that harmonisation was necessary in order to ensure the future competitiveness of the Company and therefore it wished to align salary scales, salary progress and job grading process of Cadbury Ireland terms with Kraft Foods terms.
The Cadbury Ireland salary scales include a ten point annual incremental performance related scale with an increment at the max of the scale being paid as a pensionable lump sum, in addition the scales themselves were increased in line with annual pay increases applicable and agreed with the factory staff. Whereas the Kraft Foods merit system includes a three point range, benchmarked against external labour market and peer companies, the value of which related to point 2 or 3 on the Cadbury Ireland scale and are reviewed periodically, usually every two years. Progression through the range is dependent on personal performance.
Discussions on harmonisation commenced in mid-2011. Following the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission on a number of the issues both parties agreed that the outstanding matters now before the Court concern the following:
- •Move from Cadbury Ireland incremental grades to Kraft Foods Merit System of salary progression.
•Change of the customary practice of Clerical & Administrations staff receiving increases on a par with factory staff.
•Role of Union representatives in job grading process.
•Changes to new employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
•Conditions to apply on promotion for pre-harmonisation employees.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that it is in a position to make a recommendation on the following matters in dispute:
Role of Union representatives in job grading process.
The Court recommends that the setting of a grade for a new role is a matter for the Company. Where a worker, whether a Cadbury or a Kraft Foods worker, on a substantive grade seeks a regrading then the Court recommends that the current arrangement of operating a joint Company/Union Grading Committee to evaluate and make a decision on the grading should continue.
Changes to new employees’ terms and conditions of employment.
The Court recommends that new employees of the Company should be placed on Kraft Foods terms and conditions of employment.
Conditions to apply on promotion for Cadbury Ireland employees.
The Court recommends that pre-harmonised (Cadbury Ireland) employees who apply for promotions should accept the terms and conditions applying for the promoted position and the Company must ensure that full details of the terms and conditions applying to the promotion should be made available to potential candidates.
Move from Cadbury Ireland incremental grades to Kraft Foods Merit System of salary progression, and Change of the customary practice of Clerical & Administrations staff receiving increases on a par with factory staff.
The Court is of the view that these two issues are inextricably linked and furthermore it is of the view that the company has not supplied sufficient information to allow the Union and it members to make any decisions on the issues before them. Therefore the Court recommends that the parties should immediately return to meaningful negotiations on the issues and the Company should provide full details to the Union and its members. In order to be of assistance to the parties, in these renewed discussions, and without prejudice to either party the Court is of the view that consideration may be given to the inclusion of a transition period in any arrangements agreed.
If agreement is not reached in the recommended discussions outstanding matters may be referred back to the Court, by either party, for final recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November 2012______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.