Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92398 Case Number: LCR13868 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CLAYTON LOVE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union, on behalf of six workers in the administration department, for: (i) The introduction of an improved salary scale for clerical and supervisory staff. (ii) Increase in annual leave from 19 to 20 days. (iii) Improvement in the sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
13. Having taken account of all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions the Court recommends
as follows:
1. Rates of Pay
That the Company proposals as outlined in their letter of 21st
July, 1992 be implemented within effect from 1st June, 1992.
2. Holidays
That subject to this recommendation being accepted, and the
employees fully co-operating with the Company to address the
operating implications which may arise, the annual leave in
the current year be increased from 19 to 20 days.
3. Sick Pay
Recognising that the Sick Pay Scheme is a Company wide scheme
the Court does not consider it appropriate to this Company to
consider a claim for improvements in the scheme for a section
of the employees.
Accordingly the Court does not concede the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92398 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13868
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CLAYTON LOVE DISTRIBUTION LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union, on behalf of six workers in the
administration department, for:
(i) The introduction of an improved salary scale for
clerical and supervisory staff.
(ii) Increase in annual leave from 19 to 20 days.
(iii) Improvement in the sick pay scheme.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
3. The Company is involved in the frozen food distribution
business and employs 40 workers. The 6 workers concerned (5
clerical and 1 supervisor) joined the Union in February, 1992.
Subsequently the Union submitted the claims to the Company and
contended that, as the administration department was newly
unionised, the claims were not precluded under the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). Management rejected the
claims. The Company maintain that it is unionised for many years
in the warehousing department and that the claims are constrained
by the terms of P.E.S.P. The dispute was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on the 24th April, 1992. A conciliation
conference was held on the 9th June, 1992 but no agreement was
reached. The issues were referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 6th July, 1992. By letter
dated 21st July, 1992 the F.I.E., on behalf of the Employer, put
forward a set of settlement proposals which are summarised briefly
as follows:
Salaries: Current rates: Supervisor - #183.00 Clerical grade
#159.34.
In relation to salaries Management are prepared to offer the
following:
A 3% increase in line with Clause 1 of P.E.S.P. from 1st July,
1992. In addition the Company will concede a further full 3%
increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. bringing the current rates
to:
Supervisor - #193.98 Clerical grade #168.90.
Finally the Company is prepared to award on a once off basis
an additional increase as follows:
Supervisor - #193.98 plus #10 = #203.98.
Clerical grade - #168.90 plus #10 = #178.90.
Both of these increases to be implemented from the date of
acceptance of this full proposal.
Holidays: On the basis that this proposal is acceptable in
its entirety the Company are prepared to increase the number
of annual leave days for office staff from 19 to 20 days in
the current year.
Staff must, however, have regard to the likely implications
for the increased need for overtime working and co-operate in
this regard.
Sick Pay: The Company are not prepared to amend the current
sick pay scheme.
In consideration for the above concessions management requires
from staff:
(1) A withdrawal of their claim in relation to the
introduction of pay scales.
(2) Acceptance of the need for overtime work from time to
time and the full co-operation of all staff in this area.
The proposals were rejected by the Union. The Court investigated
the dispute on the 1st September, 1992. Subsequent to the
hearing both parties submitted additional data to the Court.
Claim 1 Salary scale
Background
4. The current salary for clerical staff is #159.34. The scale
for supervisors is #185. The Union's claim is for a salary scale
ranging from #170-#220 for clerical staff and a scale ranging from
#185 to #235 for supervisors over ten increments. These rates do
not include the second phase of P.E.S.P. or the 3% local
bargaining element under Clause 3.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Union's claim is as follows:
Clerical grade - #170 - #220 p.w. (5x10 increments)
Supervisor - #185 - #235 p.w. (5x10 increments) (includes
1st Phase of P.E.S.P.).
Those scales would be adjusted to take account of the 2nd
Phase of P.E.S.P. on 1st July, 1992 and the 3% local
bargaining element under Clause 3 giving the following rates:
Clerical grade #180.35 - #233.50
Supervisor #196.27 - #249.31.
2. The Union's claim is modest. Concession of the above
rates, would equate to comparable employments (details
supplied to the Court). The Union proposes, with regard to
assimilation, that Company service only would be taken into
account in placing the workers concerned on the appropriate
pay scales.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The workers concerned are paid on the basis of a rate for
the job; there are no salary scales. The cost of the Union's
claim is prohibitive and would damage the Company's
competitiveness. The profit margins in the frozen foods
distribution business are decreasing substantially and the
Company must avoid increased overheads. The Company cannot
pass price increases on to the customer as there is a variety
of choices of other products. The retail trade is going
through a difficult period with expected increasing European
competition in the frozen food sector from 1993.
2. The Company's long term objective is to protect the
employment of its workers. Its rates of pay are fair and
equitable, particularly in view of the fact that the Company
contributes 19.1% to the non-contributory pension scheme. The
introduction of scales in one area is likely to have
repercussive effects with increasing costs to the Company.
Claim 2 Increase in annual leave
Background:
7. The current leave entitlement of the workers concerned is 19
days. The Union is claiming 20 days.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS;
8. 1. Most employees in the state have an annual leave
entitlement of 20 days, while comparable companies have 21
days. The Company's offer of the 20 days, conditional on
acceptance of its proposals, is not acceptable to the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Company is prepared, in the context of the Union's
acceptance of the overall package, to increase the leave
entitlement to 20 days.
Claim 3 Sick Pay Scheme
Background:
10. The present scheme provides for workers on medically
certified illness. There is no payment for the first 3 days.
Thereafter the scheme provides for 7 weeks and 2 days half pay
plus social welfare i.e. the maximum paid sick leave in a calendar
year covers 37 days. The Union's claim is for a limited amount of
uncertified sick leave (not more than two days together) and
certified sickness as follows: 6 weeks full, 6 weeks half pay
after 1 year, 13 weeks full pay and 13 weeks half pay after 5
years. All payments less social welfare entitlements.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The Union is claiming 8 uncertified days per year. A
maximum of 2 days would be taken at a time. This would cover
staff for minor illnesses not normally requiring medical
attention. With regard to certified illness the present scheme,
whereby the employees are not paid for the first three days, is
unfair. The Union's proposals are reasonable and are in operation
in many industries.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12. 1. The present sick pay scheme is quite adequate and has
operated efficiently for the past fifteen years.
RECOMMENDATION:
13. Having taken account of all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions the Court recommends
as follows:
1. Rates of Pay
That the Company proposals as outlined in their letter of 21st
July, 1992 be implemented within effect from 1st June, 1992.
2. Holidays
That subject to this recommendation being accepted, and the
employees fully co-operating with the Company to address the
operating implications which may arise, the annual leave in
the current year be increased from 19 to 20 days.
3. Sick Pay
Recognising that the Sick Pay Scheme is a Company wide scheme
the Court does not consider it appropriate to this Company to
consider a claim for improvements in the scheme for a section
of the employees.
Accordingly the Court does not concede the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
__________________
30th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.