FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ODLUMS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Sick pay, Pensions and Service pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the flour and oatmeal milling industry and employs approximately 160 workers at four mills located at Dublin, Sallins, Portarlington and Cork. The dispute concerns a claim, on behalf of approximately 65 employees, as follows:-
1. Pensions
(a) Revised definition of pensionable pay to include shift, service pay
and average overtime;
(b) Revised definition of level of Social Welfare integration i.e.,
integration to be reduced to 1/40th of the Single Person's Social
Welfare per year of service;
(c) Indexation of future pensions to 5% or inflation whichever is the lesser.
(d) Early retirement - option of early retirement from age 62, with no
discount;
(e) Death in Service to be improved to four times annual earnings plus half
pension based on projected service for spouse.
2. Sick Pay Scheme
A revised Sick Pay Scheme, along the following lines related to service:
0-5 years service - 6 weeks full pay, plus 6 weeks half pay
6-10 years service - 13 weeks full pay, plus 13 weeks half pay
11-15 years service - 26 weeks full pay
15 years service and over - 26 weeks full and 26 weeks half pay.
Consideration to be given to the establishment of an Income Continuance Policy to cover illnesses of duration in excess of the above.
The definition of pay for sick pay purposes to be basic plus shift plus
service pay, less Social Welfare, where appropriate.
3. Service Pay
Service pay arrangements to reflect the current cost of living.
Following local discussions, the matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission at which agreement was not reached. A second conciliation conference was held arising from which a proposal issued which was, subsequently, rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of October, 1999, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court carried out its investigation, on the 20th of December, 1999, the earliest date convenient to both parties.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The three issues raised by the Union are all an integral part of the inclusive agenda of Partnership 2000 and have so been for a number of years. The modest improvements sought should be seen as a quid pro quo for the contribution made by the workers concerned over the past 12 years (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is no basis for the claims made by the Union as the Company's sick pay and pension schemes are not out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments and any increase in service-pay would be cost-increasing and, therefore, precluded by Partnership 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Clause 4 of the pay agreement associated with Partnership 2000 provides that claims for improvements in pension and sick pay schemes are admissible only in cases where existing schemes are substantially out of line with appropriate standards in comparable employments. The information provided to the Court in relation to the present claim does not indicate that the Company's schemes are out of line, within the terms set out by the parties to the Partnership 2000 Agreement.
In those circumstances, the claim is precluded by the National Agreement and the Court does not recommend its concession, nor does it recommend concession of the other elements of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th February, 2000______________________
M.K./D.T.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.