FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LEO PHARMA (REPRESENTED BY IBEC IR EXECUTIVE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Team Leaders Productivity Pay Issue
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 26 March 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23 May 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an increase in pay for Team Leaders so that there will be a differential of 12.85% above other colleagues working on the line. This is sought to be retrospective to take account of the additional duties carried out to date.
2. Team Leaders have a 2% differential currently above other grades on their crews who report to the Team Leaders. This is out of line with the sectoral norm.
3. A number of the new tasks requested of the Team Leaders are supervisory work.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company’s offer of a 2% increase of 2% each to Team Leader base pay is very generous and fair especially as the erosion of the differential arose in 2009 at the behest of the Union, who sought to 'flatten' the pay structure.
2. LEO Pharma Dublin Team Leaders already have a basic salary which is 5.8% above the industry upper quartile.
- 3. The Company is willing to pay ‘right first time’ bonuses to Team Leaders of up to 3% in year one and 5% in year two, in addition to the pay increases offered.
4. SIPTU’s expectations for the Team Leader group are unrealistic, unachievable, and ultimately anti-competitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court identified two elements to this dispute in the course of the hearing.
The union is seeking an increase in the differential of the Team Leaders above their colleagues on the lines. The proposal by the company of a bonus scheme that could result in bonuses up to a value of 5% of pay does not increase the differential and has been rejected by the union.
The company is seeking to link some element of the additional payment, that it is willing to make, to verifiable productivity output and believes that the most effective means of doing so is by paying for this through a bonus system.
The Court is of the view that the aspirations of both sides can be met by re-structuring the offer within the existing negotiation parameters, as follows;
1)From 1 January 2019 the basic pay rates of the Team Leaders be increased by 2%.2)A further 4% increase to be applied to the basic pay rates of the Team Leaders upon the conclusion of an agreement between the parties on a bonus system, as per 3) below.
3)Discussions to take place on a bonus system, as proposed by the company, to provide for bonuses of up to 3% of basic pay. The increase to basic pay rates set out at at 2) above to be payable upon agreement to this system being reached between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
MK______________________
4 June 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.