FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONEGAL CREAMERIES (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute concerning : 1. Overtime Calculation
2. Meal Allowance
3. Partnership 2000 - 2% local bargaining increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute relates to the Company's plant at Killygordan. The Union and the Company have almost finalised a comprehensive agreement. The following issues remain unresolved.
1.Overtime
The practice in the Company up to 1994 was to pay overtime rate after 8 hours in any day. At that time local management changed the method for newly recruited staff to payment of overtime only after the normal weekly hours had been worked. About 11 staff are now paid on a daily basis and about 16 are paid on a weekly basis.The proposal in the draft agreement is that overtime will be paid after normal weekly hours have been worked. The Company is prepared to' red-circle' the 11 staff who are presently paid on a daily basis. This is not acceptable to the Union and it wants all existing staff to be paid on a daily basis on the grounds that the system was changed in 1994 without consultation or agreement.
2.Meal Allowance
The Company employs 11 drivers ; 5 of them get a meal allowance of £6 nett per week and 6 receive no allowance.The Company is proposing to drop the meal allowance altogether because the drivers are generally not away from base during the lunch hour and get paid for their lunch hour at overtime rates. The Company proposed a buy-out of £200 each for the drivers who have the allowance. This was not acceptable to the Union.
3. Partnership 2000 2%
The Union submitted its claim for the local bargaining increase of 2% under P2000 in July 1999. The Company stated that it could only consider payment from a future date in the context of the overtime and meal allowance claims being resolved on a reasonable basis. The Union wanted some element of retrospection and felt the 2% should be paid with no strings attached.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held in May, 1999 and February, 2000. No agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 15th March, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 30th March, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Overtime
Claim 1:
3 1. The change in overtime arrangements, whereby workers recruited after 1994 were only paid overtime after they had worked 39 hours unlike pre 1994 workers who were paid on a daily basis, was not agreed to by the Union.
2. One of the local production managers regularly makes the post 1994 workers take a rest day during the week which means that they work Saturdays for flat time.
3. Overtime by the day not the week should be re-instated.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company did not unilaterally change the basis for overtime calculation in 1994. It consulted with the Union at plant level and a verbal agreement was reached whereby the previous practice was amended so that all future recruits would be eligible for overtime after working 39 hours per week. While no formal record of these arrangements exist they were concluded on a verbal and informal basis in line with the culture then obtaining.
2. The manner of calculation of overtime could only be contentious in circumstances in which a worker is absent and accordingly has no implication for those employees who attend work for their full basic hours or where absence is authorised. Whilst the company would like to see all overtime calculated on a weekly basis it only seeks endorsement of what is now a well established practice for a sizeable majority of workers. Otherwise there would be a material alteration to the terms and conditions of all those workers since 1994.
Claim 2 Meal Allowance:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Drivers employed after 1994 do not receive a meal allowance valued at £6 per week. No agreement was reached with the Union to discontinue this allowance.
2. Meal allowances should be reinstated and backdated for all drivers.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company wants to eliminate the allowance and has offered £200 gross per worker to the five recipients. The Company is prepared to consider a modest increase in this offer.
2. The Company is not prepared to discuss a 'buyout' in respect of those other drivers who were never in receipt of the allowance. Such a proposition defies reasonable argument and the Company can only assume is being maintained by the Union to frustrate the Company's efforts to remove the allowance.
3. There is no established or recognised formula for "buy out" operating within the Company.
Claim 3 Partnership 2000
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Union seeks payment of the 2% increase of the P2000 agreement and to have the increase backdated to May, 1999.
2. The Company can afford this increase given the significant profits which it has made over the past year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company is willing to pay the 2% increase without retrospection on acceptance of the proposed comprehensive agreement incorporating the Company's proposed treatment of overtime as outlined.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions is not satisfied that an agreement was broken in 1994, without the knowledge of the union.
The Court recommends as follows on the issues before it:
Overtime
The Employees to accept the Company proposal to red circle the payments for those currently being paid on a daily basis.
Where the arrangement is that employees are only paid overtime after the weekly hours are worked the Court recommends that the definition of weekly hours should be Monday to Friday.
Meal Allowances
The allowance of £6 per week to be discontinued and the drivers currently paid this allowance be compensated at twice the individual's annual loss.
Partnership 2000
In return for acceptance of the comprehensive agreement and the above proposal, the Company to pay the 2% under Partnership 2000 from September, 1999.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
7th April, 2000______________________
TO'D/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.