Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD95337 Case Number: LCR14873 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ALLIED FOODS (THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Bonus scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the circumstances surrounding the
proposed installation of the new bonus scheme, has come to the
conclusion that the proposals put forward by the Industrial
Relations Officer are reasonable and contain the necessary
safeguards for the workers concerned.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the workers commence
operation of the scheme not later than the 1st September, 1995.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD95337 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14873
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
ALLIED FOODS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Bonus scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the distribution of frozen food
products to the retail sector. It has two facilities, one in
Dublin and one in Cork. The workers concerned in this claim
are employed by the Company in its warehouse in Dublin.
In the late 1980's agreement was reached between the parties
for the payment on an interim basis of the maximum bonus of
45% for day workers and 20% for night workers pending the
introduction of a new bonus scheme.
A group bonus scheme which was proposed in 1986 has not been
in operation for some years, due to major internal changes.
In the period September, 1993 to May, 1994 all warehouse
operations were measured and in June, 1994 proposals for the
new scheme (details supplied to the Court) were presented to
the workforce but no agreement could be reached for the
introduction of the scheme.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Two conciliation conferences were held following which the
Industrial Relations Officer put forward the following
proposal which was recommended by both sides for acceptance:-
"This bonus scheme is designed to deliver, at minimum,
the same potential to earn as currently.
The scheme to be introduced as follows:-
(a) The Union, having consulted further with its
Industrial Engineer, to meet with the Company prior
to introduction.
(b) Introduction to be by way of 13 week trial as
proposed. The parties to use this trial to
eliminate any difficulties identified.
(c) Parties to resume at conciliation, if necessary 11
weeks into the trial to resolve any outstanding
problems."
The proposal was rejected by the workers and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 2nd June, 1995 under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 4th August, 1995.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The scheme proposed is not a viable alternative to the
fixed bonus system. The allocation of work affects the
worker's ability to earn bonus. Management has not
shown a willingness to agree regular rotation of work to
ensure all persons have the same earning opportunities.
2. A penalty clause which allows deductions from bonus for
errors made in assembling orders is unacceptable to the
workers concerned.
3. The system should allow that the workers be compensated
fully for all work done. It is possible for some
workers to reach in excess of the ceiling of 55% which
management insist is the maximum payable.
4. The Company is refusing to operate a genuine trial of
the new system. The Union has indicated its willingness
to operate a trial system providing it allows for a
return to the previous system if it is shown that the
new system does not work.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The present arrangement of paying a fixed bonus was only
introduced, with the agreement of the Union, as an
interim measure pending the introduction of a revised
bonus scheme. The Company cannot continue to pay 45%
fixed bonus on an indefinite basis.
2. The purpose of any bonus scheme is to act as an
incentive to increase productivity. Therefore, the
present fixed bonus cannot continue as it does not
address the question of productivity.
3. S.I.P.T.U.'s Industrial Engineer has accepted the bonus
scheme and was involved in its design and measurement by
the Company.
4. The Union are unable to identify any particular concerns
with the bonus scheme itself.
5. On the basis of Company records on present work levels
employees earnings would be greater if the new scheme
was introduced.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the circumstances surrounding the
proposed installation of the new bonus scheme, has come to the
conclusion that the proposals put forward by the Industrial
Relations Officer are reasonable and contain the necessary
safeguards for the workers concerned.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the workers commence
operation of the scheme not later than the 1st September, 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd August, 1995 Evelyn Owens
F.B./D.T. ____________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.