Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9681 Case Number: LCR15154 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WATERFORD FOODS - and - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim for the payment of average pay for holidays.
Recommendation:
The interpretation by the Department of Enterprise and Employment
on this issue would appear to have significantly effected the
financial cost of the Industrial Relations Agreement reached by
the Parties.
The Court notes the Department's interpretation and the Company's
acceptance of this legal interpretation. It is also recognised
that there is a conflict between the parties in relation to the
Industrial Relations Agreement, as it was envisaged to affect
holiday pay; and the legal entitlements under the Holiday Act.
The Court recommends that the present situation be resolved by the
payment of annual earnings, for this group, from the 1995 holiday
year as follows:-
3 weeks at average
1 week at basic
Division: Mr Flood Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9681 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR15154
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
WATERFORD FOODS
AND
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the payment of average pay for holidays.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the Court concerns the Union's claim on
behalf of bulk milk drivers employed by the Company at its
depots in Shandon and Kilmeadan County Waterford for the
payment of average pay for holiday purposes. The drivers
have been in receipt of 4 weeks annual holidays since 1978.
Following discussions on rationalisation/productivity in late
1987, an agreement was put in place for bulk milk drivers.
As a result of this agreement the remuneration of the drivers
was changed from a basic rate of pay plus overtime, to a
system of basic pay plus payment per gallon of milk
collected. In 1988 the Union sought the inclusion of the
gallonage payment for holiday pay purposes. Management
rejected the claim.
In July, 1989 the Union referred the matter to the then
Department of Labour. The Department replied in August, 1995
that it considered that the payment should be included in
holiday pay. In its response to the Department the Company
accepted the decision and indicated that it would pay the
statutory 3 weeks holidays based on average earnings as per
the Holidays (Employees) Acts.
The Union is seeking that the Company pay 4 weeks holiday pay
as per the 1978 Company/Union agreement.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference took place on 13th December, 1995.
As no agreement could be reached the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 16th February, 1996 under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on 12th April, 1996.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's position is unacceptable to the Union.
The workers concerned have been in receipt of 4 weeks
annual holidays for 18 years as per the Company/Union
agreement of 1978. The Company should honour its
agreement.
2. The Union is seeking that the Court support its view
that the drivers, who have shown considerable patience
in processing this issue, should be paid average pay for
their 4 weeks holiday entitlement and that it recommend
an appropriate date from which the payment should be
made.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As a result of the 1987 rationalisation agreement the
remuneration of the bulk milk drivers was changed from a
system where they were paid a basic rate plus overtime
to a basic rate plus payment per gallon collected. The
payment per gallon clearly replaced the overtime
payments under the old system.
2. A similar claim in 1987 for the payment of average pay
for holiday purposes was rejected by the Labour Court
(LCR 11419 refers).
3. Product prices have fallen considerably in 1996. The
net result is a drop equivalent to 12 pence per gallon
from revenues received in 1995. This serious drop in
margins is not reflected in the purchase price of milk.
4. There are unprecedented pressures on the profitability
of the business and any issue which would lead to
further cost increases will only contribute to reducing
the long-term sustainability of current activity levels.
5. The Company accepts the Department's decision and
acknowledges the employees right to have bonuses
included for payment in their statutory 3 weeks holiday
entitlement. Any payment above this is clearly cost
increasing and is precluded under the terms of the
Programme for Competitiveness and Work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The interpretation by the Department of Enterprise and Employment
on this issue would appear to have significantly effected the
financial cost of the Industrial Relations Agreement reached by
the Parties.
The Court notes the Department's interpretation and the Company's
acceptance of this legal interpretation. It is also recognised
that there is a conflict between the parties in relation to the
Industrial Relations Agreement, as it was envisaged to affect
holiday pay; and the legal entitlements under the Holiday Act.
The Court recommends that the present situation be resolved by the
payment of annual earnings, for this group, from the 1995 holiday
year as follows:-
3 weeks at average
1 week at basic
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th April, 1996 Finbarr Flood
F.B./S.G. ________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.