FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GALLAHER (DUBLIN) LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. (a) VHI subsidy; (b) Harmonisation of pay round dates.
BACKGROUND:
2. VHI subsidy
The Union is seeking an increase in the VHI subsidy which the Company gives to general operatives. It wants the subsidy brought into line with that given to the clerical/administrative staff.
The Company rejected the Union's claim and stated that the claim was precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
Harmonisation of pay round dates
The Union is also seeking the harmonisation of wage round increases for general operatives to bring them into line with the clerical/administration grades.
The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it would worsen its competitive position.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 23rd of January, 2001, but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of May, 2001, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 31st of October, 2001.
VHI Subsidy
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company should pay the same VHI subsidy to the general operatives as that paid to the clerical/administrative staff. The current practise is both discriminatory and unfair.
2. The Company's policy towards its employees should be uniform and based on the principles of equality.
3. This is a long standing claim which the Company should concede.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is cost increasing and is, therefore, precluded under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
2. Concession of the claim would lead to knock-on claims.
3. The Company is the leader in the industry in relation to pay and benefits and should not be asked to widen the gap further particularly when its nearest
competitor does not provide health benefits to any of its employees.
Harmonisation of Pay Round Rates
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union has always argued for the harmonisation of pay round dates on grounds of equality and fairness. While the members accept different pay structures, pay date increases should be the same.
2. The clerical/administrative staff pay date round is three months earlier than the general operatives. There is no reason why the pay date for the general operatives cannot be the same.
3. The Company's approach to the issue of pay date harmonisation should be no less different to the issues of VHI and pay date increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The settlement pay date of 1st June is the historic date of review for the Union's members and has been in place since 1992.
2. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the terms of the P.P.F.
3. Any concession of the claim would lead to knock-on claims from other groups within the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has taken consideration of the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court concurs with the view that these claims are cost increasing claims and, therefore, under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness the Court is constrained from recommending concession. Accordingly, the Court rejects both claims.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th November, 2001______________________
LW/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.