ADJUDICATION OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
Adjudication Reference: ADJ-00009083
Parties:
| Complainant | Respondent |
Anonymised Parties | A Quality Co-Ordinator | A Soft Drinks Company |
Complaint(s):
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Date of Receipt |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00011928-001 | 16/06/2017 |
Date of Adjudication Hearing: 10/01/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Procedure:
In accordance with Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts 1969following the referral of the complaint(s)/dispute(s) to me by the Director General, I inquired into the complaint(s)/dispute(s) and gave the parties an opportunity to be heard by me and to present to me any evidence relevant to the complaint(s)/dispute(s).
Background:
The dispute concerns the correct Incremental point for the Complainant on an alleged 10-point scale. |
1: Summary of Complainant’s Case:
The Complainant was first employed in the Quality laboratory by the Respondent in March 2006. In June 2008, he received a Contract of Employment which contained a 10-point scale. In 2009 the Respondent, in the depth of the then economic downturn, announced a pay freeze across the site. In 2010 this was extended by a unilateral Management decision to completely do away with the incremental Scale. The Complainant has been effectively “frozen” on point 4 since 2010. When the financial situation improved for the Respondents (post the return of the general local bargaining increases in 2014/2105) it was the clear and legitimate expectation of the Complainant that his former arrangements guaranteed by this legal Contract would return and that he would once again move along his agreed incremental scale. This was refused by the Respondent in flagrant breach of the contractual positon of the Complainant. Despite a number of local Collective Bargaining efforts to resolve this issue the Complainant remains on Point 4. This is in complete breach of his Contract of Employment. The financial positon of the Respondent has allowed it to pay a range of local bargaining increases since 2015. This makes the failure to address the Complainant’s grievance all the more galling. |
2: Summary of Respondent’s Case:
The employment history was agreed as set out above. In 2009 the Respondent was in a precarious financial situation and a pay freeze was essential. In addition, in this period over 359 staff were made redundant with factory and warehouse closures. By 2014 the financial situation had stabilised and the Respondent was able to begin paying a series of local bargaining increases. These were all agreed with all Unions on site including SIPTU, the Complainant’s Union. It was the clear positon of the Respondent Management that the general agreement of November 2014 (which reintroduced Plant wide Local bargaining increases) with SIPTU and the other Unions, was on the clear understanding that all “legacy” issues such as incremental pay Scales were effectively consigned to history. The current claim for the Complainant did not materialise until October 2016 almost two years after the general agreement. In Oral evidence the staff composition in the Laboratory was described as having a mixture of “legacy” staff (old pay scales) and new entrants. The Complainant is on the old Point 4 with 3 colleagues ahead of him on Point 10 and Point 9. In addition, there are colleagues, recruited in recent years on lesser fixed rate contracts. The entire Laboratory issue has been twice to Conciliation with the WRC. No progress could be recorded and it was decided jointly to refer the Complainant’s case to an Individual Adjudication hearing. |
3: Findings and Conclusions:
From hearing the oral evidence presented and having read the correspondence it was clear to me that this was a collective claim. The SIPTU Union letter of the 16th February and the WRC Conciliation Service reply of the 31st March 2017 refers to the “Reinstatement of pay Increments – Laboratory Technicians”. Regrettably the Conciliation Service was unable to make progress and it was unclear to me from the Parties why the next stage in the IR process – a referral to the Labour Court for a full hearing was not pursued. It appeared to me, from the description of the current set up in the laboratory and the inherent complexities therein with Old and New pay arrangements for what is clearly “a body of workers”, that the only solution was a collective negotiation including if necessary a return to Conciliation and ultimately the Labour Court. As set out in Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act,1969 an Adjudication Officer can have no jurisdiction in a Body of Workers claim and I accordingly set this claim aside. |
4: Recommendation:
Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Acts, 1969 requires that I make a recommendation in relation to the dispute.
Act | Complaint/Dispute Reference No. | Summary Recommendation /refer to Section 3 above for detailed reasoning. |
Complaint seeking adjudication by the Workplace Relations Commission under section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 | CA-00011928-001 | As this is a “Body of Workers” claim I have no jurisdiction and the claim is set aside.
|
Dated: 30/04/2018
Workplace Relations Commission Adjudication Officer: Michael McEntee
Key Words: