FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MERCK SHARP & DOHME (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a pay claim. The Union is seeking a 3% pay increase for its co-operation in entering into the Computerised Maintenance Management System (CMMS). The Union contends that the pay increase in warranted as the new system will inevitably require more decision making, greater accountability and additional work in time. Management contend that entering into the CMMS process should be considered as normal ongoing change as it is simply a more efficient way of doing the same job. It further contends that due to competitive pressures and a requirement to reduce costs going forward that a pay increase is totally inappropriate and unsustainable.
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 reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 16th November, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 19th September, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union has co-operated with all cost saving initiatives that have been introduced by management. As a result of a reduction in staff numbers and a greater requirement for flexibility, this new process will lead to additional work and greater responsibility in time.
2 The Union's claim is fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The Union is seeking parity with SIPTU on the issue as the 3% increase has already been applied to those workers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Union's claim is without merit. The new system is a data entry system of information already collected. It will not involve any additional duties that would justify a pay increase. The Company provide a generous remuneration package and cannot sustain further costs.
2 The claim for parity with SIPTU members in this case is invalid. The pay increase received by SIPTU members was for taking on new roles which attracted a 3% pay increase not for entering into the CMMS process.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that the work in issue in this case constitutes normal on-going change as that term is normally understood. In these circumstances the Court does not accept that there is any justifiable basis for the Union's claim.
The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th October 2012______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.