FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOVARTIS RINGASKIDDY LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Benchmarking Pay Review
BACKGROUND:
2. Following on from a Labour Relations Commission Agreement in 2003, an independent Benchmarking report was concluded and accepted by both management and the Union in 2005. The Union and management entered negotiations on agreeing a pay range in line with the report. Management agreed to an incremental salary scale over a ten year period. However, both parties disagreed over the level of increments and range of pay for the workers.
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 21st February, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The low level of entry rate pay offered by the company was not competitive. From the Benchmarking report it is clear that the level of pay of our members was well below the median level of €28,900 and the maximum point of the company's scale €41,000 was also well below the upper quartile of comparative companies.
2 Management proposed extending the salary scale from 8 points to 10 and approved the entry level pay offer to €29,000. The maximum of the scale was extended to €46,000. In a reasonable attempt to settle this long standing issue the Union proposed a 9 point scale as a compromise and a salary scale from €29,000 to €49,000. Management did not accept this proposal. Throughout negotiations management's inactivity has frustrated the Union.
3 Local discussions failed and despite extensive efforts by the LRC, Management did not address the Union's formal claim which is a salary scale of €33,000 to €49,000 in 8 incremental points retrospective to January 2006.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Union is seeking a pay scale that represents increases ranging from 3.4% to 6.5% above the proposed scale from the company. Such a claim is not valid under Clause 1.4 of the Towards 2016 Agreement. The actual increases provided for in the initiative from the company already ranges from 11.53% to 12.2%. The significance of this appears to be disregarded by the Union.
2 The company has always benchmarked against the market and demonstrated in the previous hearings before the Court that its salary range was not out of line with those generally prevailing in its sector. It has never been the highest but it is well in line with the norms that exist.
3 The company has also mentioned on previous occasions that the pay cost movements from any group must represent what is justified. No case can be objectively made to support the pay demand, which is central to this dispute.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the salary scale be €29,000 to €49,350 over 10 increments. The effective date should be 1st January 2006, as agreed by the parties.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th July,2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.