|
FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BORGWARNER TRALEE LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION - AND - SIX TECHNICIAN GRADES (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. The non-application of the final phase of Towards 2016.
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue dispute relates to the payment of the final phase of Towards 2016 (2.5%) backdated to 2010 for a group of six Technicians.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 4 July 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 September 2019.
RECOMMENDATION :
The issue in dispute between the parties is payment of the final phase of Towards 2016 (2.5%) backdated to 2010 for a group of six Technicians. It is the Union’s submission that payment of the final phase was included in the calculation of a redundancy package previously paid to a number of Technicians. It is their position that a number of these Technicians returned to the Company and are a currently on a pay rate that includes the final phase of Towards 2016.
It is the Employer’s submission that there are two categories of Workers in the plant, Salaried Staff and General Operatives. While General Operatives were paid the final phase of Towards 2016 nobody from the salaried group of Workers (which includes the Technicians) received the increase and it was not included in the redundancy payments previously made to staff from that category. In relation to staff who had returned it was the Employer’s submission that these staff had returned as General Operatives and were paid the rate for that grade.
It appears to the Court that the issues in dispute can be established by an examination of the relevant documentation by both parties. The Union’s claim stems from a belief that Technicians received this increase in their redundancy payments and that they have returned to the workforce as Technicians on a rate of pay that includes that increase. The Employer disputes this and indicated to the Court that it had documentation that would support their position. Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties return to Conciliation and, without identifying specific individuals, should exchange and engage on the documentation they are relying on in support of their respective positions on this issue. It is the view of the Court that this has the potential to bring clarity to the issue.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CR ______________________
27 September, 2019 Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.