Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9424 Case Number: LCR14353 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;UNION OF MOTOR TRADE TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Claim by the Unions for (1) Improvements in pension entitlements (2) Harmonisation of sick pay entitlements between manual and non-manual grades.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
recommends as follows in respect of the two items claimed.
1. Pension Scheme - As the existing Pension Scheme is
Industry wide and improvements have traditionally been
negotiated by the Management Committee which consists of
Trade Union/Management representatives the Court
considers that this claim should be referred to that
Committee for resolution.
2. Sick Pay - In regard to the claim under Sick Pay the
Court, while noting the comments on the P.C.W. (yet to
be ratified) in the employer's submission, is not
satisfied that the Union has been given sufficient
opportunity to negotiate meaningfully within the terms
of that Clause 4. The Court therefore recommends that
such negotiations do take place. Should agreement not
be reached or the P.C.W. not be ratified the parties may
refer this matter back to the Court for recommendation.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9424 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14353
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
MOTOR SERVICES LIMITED
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
UNION OF MOTOR TRADE TECHNICAL AND INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYEES
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for
(1) Improvements in pension entitlements
(2) Harmonisation of sick pay entitlements between manual
and non-manual grades.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns approximately 40 manual/craft workers
employed at the Company's three outlets, Park Motors, Ballsbridge
Motors and Europa Cars. The claims were referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on the
13th October, 1993. As no agreement was reached the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 14th January, 1994. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 15th February, 1994.
CLAIM I - PENSION SCHEME:
BACKGROUND
3. The workers concerned are covered by the Society for the
Irish Motors Industry (S.I.M.I.) Pension Scheme which was first
introduced in 1974. At its inception the Scheme provided for the
calculation of service of workers for pension purposes, accrued
from the time of commencement of the Scheme. It did not provide
for service accrued by workers in the industry prior to
introduction of the scheme. Most of the workers concerned are in
that category. The Unions claim that the Company should improve
the pension scheme by assisting with contributions to enable the
workers concerned to purchase advanced voluntary contributions in
order to achieve the full retirement benefit provided by the
scheme.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The S.I.M.I. pension scheme provides a basic rate of
benefit. It provides for advanced voluntary contributions.
The Company has the capacity to provide enhanced benefits.
The claimants are prepared to enhance their entitlements
through advanced voluntary contributions. In these
circumstances the Company should also make a contribution.
2. The Pension Scheme is designed to provide two thirds of
final salary. This cannot be achieved by the majority of the
claimants who joined the Company prior to 1974 as their
actual service to the industry will not be fully reckonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The S.I.M.I. pension scheme was agreed by employers and
Unions and any changes would have to be agreed at industry
level. Some improvements have been made to the pension
scheme since 1974.
2. The Company has made a survey of other motor retailers
and is satisfied that its pension arrangements are fully in
line with motor industry norms.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the
P.E.S.P..
4. The Company cannot afford to concede the claim as it
cannot sustain any increase in operating costs.
CLAIM 2 - SICK PAY SCHEME
BACKGROUND:
6. The Company operates a sick pay scheme for manual/craft
workers which provides flat rate benefits of #15 p.w.. The
workers make a contribution of 30p per week. In the case of
non-manual grades the Company operates a separate non-contributory
scheme which provides for full pay. The Unions claim that a
similar scheme should apply to the manual/craft workers.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There is a wide disparity in the sick pay entitlements
of manual/craft workers vis a vis non-manual grades who form
the majority of workers in the Company. This is
discriminatory and unfair to the workers concerned.
2. Sick pay schemes are now standardised in industry
generally and the majority of workers are covered by such
schemes. The Company is one of the largest employers in the
motor trade and it can well afford to provide reasonable
income protection for all its workers during periods of
illness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company has surveyed numerous comparable retail
motor companies and is satisfied that its arrangements for
sick pay are in line with the industry norm.
2. The Company understands that under the newly drafted
Programme for Competitiveness and Work (P.C.W.) the Unions
are not precluded from making claims for improvements in
pensions and sick pay schemes "where these are substantially
out of line with appropriate standards in comparable
employments". However the Company is satisfied that its
pensions and sick pay arrangements are not out of line with
comparable employments.
3. Sick pay is made from a fund which is currently barely
in a break even situation.
3. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the
terms of P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submission from the parties the Court
recommends as follows in respect of the two items claimed.
1. Pension Scheme - As the existing Pension Scheme is
Industry wide and improvements have traditionally been
negotiated by the Management Committee which consists of
Trade Union/Management representatives the Court
considers that this claim should be referred to that
Committee for resolution.
2. Sick Pay - In regard to the claim under Sick Pay the
Court, while noting the comments on the P.C.W. (yet to
be ratified) in the employer's submission, is not
satisfied that the Union has been given sufficient
opportunity to negotiate meaningfully within the terms
of that Clause 4. The Court therefore recommends that
such negotiations do take place. Should agreement not
be reached or the P.C.W. not be ratified the parties may
refer this matter back to the Court for recommendation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
4th March, 1994 Evelyn Owens
T.O.D./M.M. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.