Up Arrow
 
 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and press GO

 
Question Icon
 

Select an option from the dropdown list and then press GO

 
 
 

2002

Information Icon Water Mark
Up Arrow

Add to Binder allows you to add Workplace Relations content to your personal binder for viewing or printing later.

Binder icon image Binder

To access your binder, click the Binder link at the top of the page.

 
 

LCR17322

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/02/449
RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR17322
(CC01/3680)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990



PARTIES :
BECTON DICKINSON AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION


DIVISION :

Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
SUBJECT:
1. Payment of retrospective service pay.


BACKGROUND:

2. The Company operates from two plants, one in Drogheda, Co. Louth and one in Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin. It manufactures medi-care products for the Irish, European and International markets.

In January, 2001, an agreement was concluded between the Company and the Union for employees at the Dun Laoghaire plant. The deal included an increase in service pay from 47p to 60p per week. Subsequently, the Union became aware that the employees at the Drogheda plant were already receiving the 60p since 1996.

The Union's claim is for the increase to be paid to its members at the Dun Laoghaire plant retrospective to 1996. The Company rejects the claim.

The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of August, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st of October, 2002, the earliest date suitable to the parties.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. Pay and terms and conditions of employment are aligned in both plants. Both plants have worked in harmony for almost thirty years.

2. It cannot be accepted that one group of workers are treated less favourably than other groups.

3. The workers concerned feel they were badly treated in relation to the 2001 agreement on service pay and believe the claim for retrospection is justified.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. Both plants operate under different Company/Union agreements. Terms and conditions of employment are negotiated separately for each plant.

2. The increase in Service Pay at the Drogheda plant in 1996 was implemented as part of a wide ranging agreement specific to that plant.

3. The claim cannot be conceded as it would have serious repercussion's for the Company.



RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has considered the submissions of both parties. The Court is satisfied that there has been a history of separate negotiations with separate deals being concluded in respect of both plants. As a result of an agreement concluded between the parties in January, 2001, service pay was increased to 60p per week. The Court is satisfied that this deal was negotiated and concluded for the Dun Laoghaire plant and there is no basis for the payment of retrospection in this case.

Therefore, the Court does not concede concession of the claim.






Signed on behalf of the Labour Court



Caroline Jenkinson
18th November, 2002______________________
GB/MB.Deputy Chairman



NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.




 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Share this page

 
logo-sml
Links|About the Reform Programme|Accessibility|Privacy Policy|Disclaimer|Sitemap

Registered Address: Department of Business, Enterprise and Innovation, O'Brien Road, Carlow