FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ALLEGRO LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION - MARINE PORT& GENERAL WORKERS UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Salary review.
BACKGROUND:
2. Allegro Limited is a sales, marketing and distribution company based in Finglas. It employs 75 staff. In 1999 it merged with Gillespie Foods Ltd and is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Fyffes plc. At the time of the merger and under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission agreement was reached on harmonization of sales representatives salaries.
At a meeting in April 2004 , the local union representatives raised the issue of a salary review with management. This was rejected by the Company.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 2nd March, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th May, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Following the merger the Union made it clear to the Company that it would seek a review of the salary scales of its members if business improved.
2. The salary scales of the Union's members are clearly out of line with those in the sector generally.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company position is that no assurance of a pay review was given following the merger.
2. The claim is cost-increasing and therefore precluded under Clause 1.5 of the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
3. The Company is satisfied that its rates of pay are not out of line with those paid in other similar employments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that the claim as advanced by the Union is cost increasing and therefore the claim is debarred under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
However, the Court considers that the red-circling arrangement which arose at the time of the merger in 1999 (i.e. the difference between €41,798 and €43,500) is no longer necessary at this point considering all other conditions have since been harmonised.
Therefore, the Court recommends that this difference should be removed at the expiry of Sustaining Progress.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th June, 2005______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.