FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : R H CATERING (REPRESENTED BY THE SMALL FIRMS ASSOCIATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Employer Member: Worker Member: |
1. (1) Sick Pay Scheme, (2) Redundancy Terms, (3) P.C.W. - Third Phase (4) P.E.S.P. - Clause 3.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company has provided catering facilities at Semperit Ireland Limited since the previous contractor went into liquidation in September, 1995. Traditionally Semperit paid national pay agreements to its direct employees and later re-imbursed the catering company for increases to the catering staff. Semperit recently advised the Company to pay a lump sum of 3.5% to cover pay increases from January, 1996, to December, 1996.
The Union is seeking lump sum payments of £400 gross and £250 in vouchers which were paid to direct employees for deferment of the wage agreements. The Union is claiming the same redundancy terms as those paid to direct employees, i.e. 5 weeks' pay per year of service plus statutory, calculations to include all the percentage increases under PESP and PCW. The Union is also seeking sick leave payments which were withheld by the previous catering company who suspended the sick pay scheme because of an absenteeism problem.
The issues in dispute were the subject of a conciliation conference on 5th October, 1996 under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 7th November, 1996 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on 11th November, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As the present contractor retained the services of existing staff in 1995, some of them have been employed at the Semperit plant for up to 11 years. Their dedicated service deserves the same recognition as that of direct Semperit employees. It is not unusual for a main employer to meet redundancy terms for contract staff, as Semperit did for a previous contract in 1985.
2. Under the transfer of undertakings, workers' rights in relation to the sick pay scheme as per the Company/Union agreement remain unchanged. The scheme, which has been suspended, should be re-instated and all monies owing to staff should be paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company will pass on to the employees any monies received from Semperit, who has recently agreed a payment to cover Clause 3 of PESP and Phase 3 of PCW.
2. Semperit has informed the Company that it has no legal or contractual obligation to make redundancy payments to canteen personnel. The Company may be in a position to pay statutory redundancy payments but an enhanced payment is not feasible.
3. The Union was advised in 1995 that there was a major absenteeism problem. Over 200 days were lost through sick leave between January, 1995, and October, 1995, and sick leave payments were withheld by the previous contractor. The non-payment of sick leave has continued up to the present day.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions the Court recommends as follows in relation to the four items in dispute:-
(1) P.C.W. - Phase 3 & - P.C.W. to be implemented from the date due and
Clause 3 - P.E.S.P. included for the purpose of calculating redundancy.
(2) Redundancy Terms - The Court recommends that R.H. Catering pay the statutory amounts due. The Court also notes that Semperit has in the past paid redundancy to indirect employees and accordingly recommends that they continue past practice and agree to pay 5 weeks' pay per year of service (excl. statutory).
(3) Sick Leave - In view of the above Recommendation the Court recommends that the Union should not pursue this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
2nd December, 1996______________________
D.G./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Dympna Greene, Court Secretary.