FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHIRES IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Owens Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr Rorke |
1. (1) Bonus scheme; (2) Sick pay scheme; (3) Lunch and overnight expenses; (4) Service pay; (5) Profit sharing scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shires Ireland Limited, is a subsidiary of Shires UK Limited. It supplies ceramic sanitary ware and other associated products such as brass ware to the construction industry.
The Company claims that it has been unable to obtain any price increase for its products over the past eighteen months because of cheaper imports. The sanitary ware and brass ware markets are now flooded with imports from Turkey, The Czech Republic, Portugal and Italy. One competitor is importing brass ware direct from China. As a result of these imports the Company's margins on its products have been further eroded.
The Union submitted a claim on behalf of its members as outlined above and states that the claim is reasonable and should be conceded by the Company.
The Company claims that it is unable to absorb any further cost increases. As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on the 19th February, 1997, and the 8th April, 1997. At the conciliation conference on the 8th April, 1997 the Industrial Relations Officer (IRO) put forward proposals in relation to a Sick Pay Scheme, and Meal/Overnight Allowances as follows:-
Sick Pay Scheme:
- 3 waiting days
- 4 weeks' full pay (nett of social welfare) followed by
- 4 weeks' half pay (nett of social welfare) based on a rolling year calculation.
Meal/Overnight Allowances:
Breakfast: £3.00
Lunch: £4.00
Evening Meal: £6.50
Overnight: £18.00
The IRO's proposals as set out above were rejected by the Union following a ballot of its members.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th August, 1997 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 22nd October, 1997.
BONUS SCHEME:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union would like to initiate discussions on a bonus scheme which would result in cost-benefits to the Company.
2. A properly constructed scheme would maximise the efficiency of the operation and also accrue remuneration for employees in return for one hundred per cent performance.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in a financial position to absorb any further cost increases.
2. The claim is a cost-increasing one and is precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000.
SICK PAY SCHEME:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The workers are seeking a sick pay scheme which will provide them with adequate cover when they are absent from work through illness.
2. The workers want the same sick benefits as currently exist for Management/Administrative staff.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company agreed in principle, at conciliation, to consider a sick pay scheme, the details of which were to be negotiated.
2. While the claim is a cost-increasing one the Company is prepared to implement a sick pay scheme for its workers.
EXPENSES/MEAL & OVERNIGHT ALLOWANCE:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The drivers in the Company are seeking a substantial improvement in relation to the current allowances for Meal & Overnight Expenses.
2. The workers claim that Management and their colleagues in the Sales/Marketing area enjoy much higher allowances.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company is not in a financial position to absorb any further cost increasing claims.
2. The claim for higher allowances/expenses is cost-increasing and is precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000.
SERVICE PAY:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
9. 1. The Union is seeking Service Pay for its members as follows: £3.00 after 5 years' service; £6.00 after 10 years' service; £9.00 after 15 years' service, and £12.00 after 20 years' service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
10. 1. The Company is not in a financial position to implement a Service Pay scheme.
2. The claim is cost-increasing and is precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000.
PROFIT SHARING SCHEME:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
11. 1. The Union is seeking the implementation of a Profit Sharing Scheme for its members. Partnership 2000, clause 3.15 supports such a scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
12 1. This scheme is contrary to the policy of the parent company in the U.K. and the Company has no remit to discuss such a scheme.
2. It is a cost-increasing claim and is therefore precluded under the terms of Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions from the parties and recommends as follows on the items in dispute.
1. Bonus Scheme - The Court considers the Union's approach reasonable on a non-cost increasing basis and accordingly recommends that the Company agree to an examination and feasibility assessment with the assistance of a professional as considered necessary.
2. Sick Pay Scheme - The proposals of the I.R.O. be implemented and the effects be examined when in existence for 12 months.
3. Expenses - The I.R.O. proposals be accepted subject to an increase to £10 for evening meals.
4. Service Pay - The Court does not find in favour of the Union's claim.
5. Profit Sharing - This issue should be considered in the light of any change in tax treatment of Share Schemes as outlined in Partnership 2000.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
31st October, 1997______________________
L.W./S.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.