INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
COCA COLA BOTTLERS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Pierce
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Proposed new pay bands.
2. Coca-Cola Bottlers Ireland is a premier soft drinks company in Ireland and maintains market leadership in an extremely competitive environment. The Company faces intensive competition from local and national bottlers and from European imports. The Company currently employees circa 600 permanent employees. The clerical administration employees account for roughly ten per cent of the workforce and are located in Dublin and four regional depots.
In August 2000, the Clerical Administration Section mandated the Union to seek a pay grade review. Management's response was to refuse such a review. The matter was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission and as agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th of October, 2002, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 14th of January, 2003.
3. 1. The Union have taken an unrealistic position in these negotiations and the increases which the Union are looking to achieve are in breach of National Wage Agreements and are cost increasing claims.
2. The Union's aspiration for a retrospective element to apply is not warranted as the old system is still in existence. As a consequence of this, no one is losing out.
3. The fundamental tenet behind the new system is the inclusion of a merit-based increase, which the Union initially agreed to in principle . The Company agreed to red-circling certain individuals in a bone fide attempt to meet the Union's concerns.
4. The Union's claim for €1,000 increase on the top of each band has no basis other than that of trying to get the maximum possible. The new system will provide increases to those who would have topped-out under the old scheme.
4. 1. It is inconceivable that no element of retrospection is included in a settlement. Review was first sought in August 2002.
2. Members have participated in productivity yielding efficiency drives across departments and believe their co-operation was inadequately rewarded.
3. Members were very much aware of the ability of every other department to negotiate efficiency based improvement and are also aware of inclusion of collective bonus systems applying in these departments.
4. The incremental value of increases on the current service related scale were approximately 3%. The members believe that the threshold on the appraisal system at 1% is too low.
In the Court's view the final position put forward by the Company is reasonable and significant further improvements would not be justified.
However, in the interests of bringing finality to these negotiations the Court recommends that the offer be modified as follows:
1. The guaranteed increase in the first year should be 4%
2. A further merit increase of 5% should be provided for those who clearly exceed targets to a significant degree.
With these adjustments, the Court recommends that all other aspects of the final offer be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd January, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.