INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
IRISH DISTILLERS LTD.
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. Pay scales for the shift supervisory group.
2. Irish Distillers employs 500 people across three sites in the Republic of Ireland. The Midleton Distillery in Cork is split broadly into two main areas, one of which is Brewing, Distillation and By-Product Recovery which operates on shift. The shift operation consists of 18 Shift Operatives and 3 Shift Supervisors.
The claim before the Court is on behalf of the Shift Supervisory Group who are claiming relativity with Shift Operatives. The claim was rejected by the Company.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th June, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th December, 2005.
3. 1.The claim for a pay increase in the form of an increased handover allowance is based on the established Company practice of maintaining similar arrangements between supervisors and operators who work the same shifts.
2. The claim is also justified on the grounds of the significant increase in responsibilities recently taken on by the supervisors.
4. 1. There is no relativity between the Shift Supervisors and Shift Operatives. One group carry out a supervisory management function and attract the terms and conditions associated with that, the operative group does not.
2. An agreement in 2003 with the Shift Operatives required a restructuring of their work areas. As no change was required of the Shift Supervisor group the payments made should not apply to them.
The Court does not accept that any established pay relationship exists between the claimant group and the Operative grade. Nor is the Court satisfied that the increase claimed is justified on the basis of the changes relied upon by the Union.
In these circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
10th January, 2006______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.