INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
NOVARTIS RINGASKIDDY LIMITED
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Carberry
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR17324
2. This is a re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR17324 which was held on the 6th November, 2002. In LCR17324 the Court recommended as follows:-
- " The Court having considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties, recommends as follows:-
1. The Company to implement the offers it made on assimilationand the starting salary rate.
2. The Union in return to accept an implementation date of 1st August, 2002."
The Union alleges that management is attempting to interpret Labour Court Recommendation LCR17324in a very narrow fashion. The Union is in dispute in relation to (1) The Company's proposals on the starting level of pay at €25,000 as being too low, (2) The Company's proposals on how staff are to be assimilated onto the new scale was not equitable to staff who had previous experience prior to employment with the Company.
Management states that Mr Declan Morrin of the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) put formal pay proposals to both parties. However, these were rejected by the Union following a ballot of the members. The Company claims that no further formal pay proposals were put to the parties by the LRC. The Company would like the Court to clarify its intention in relation to Labour Court Recommendation LCR17324.
The dispute was referred back to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Cork on the 29th January, 2003.
3. 1. The Company is attempting to interpret Labour Court Recommendation LCR17324 in a very narrow fashion.
2. The Company has failed to address (a) the low starting rate of pay; (2) assimilation; (3) full retrospection.
3. The Company is a very profitable employer within the industry. The employees concerned perform a key role in the development and success of the Company.
4. 1. The proposals put forward by the LRC were recommended for acceptance for by both sides. The Company believes that the offer was very generous. However, it was rejected by the workers.
2. Management had informal discussions with local representatives of the Analysts on the issue of those who would enter the scale on the lower points.
3. The cost of the Union's proposals would amount to an extra €100,000 for the Company. There is no approval for this expenditure nor would such approval be given.
Following the issuing of LCR17324 a dispute arose between the parties in relation to what had or had not been the status of issues discussed at conciliation. This centred around the application of credit for external service.
The Union maintained the Company offered or at least entertained the figure of a half an increment for each year of external service, the Company being adamant its position was and remains a quarter of an increment for each year of external service.
The Court considered the written and oral submissions made by the parties and subsequently spoke to the Industrial Relations Officer involved in the case.
While accepting that confusion may exist between the parties, the Court is satisfied that the offer of a quarter is the one that should be considered as the Company position, and the offer for consideration.
The Court trusts that this clarification will enable the parties to reach a conclusion to this matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th March, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.