FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JETWASH LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. (1). Rates of pay allegedly being out of line with comparable employment (2). Alleged failure to apply the terms of P2000 & its predecessors (3). Alleged failure to apply the standard working week of 39 hours (4). Alleged failure to provide a paid tea break (5). Alleged non-provision of sick pay & pension scheme
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures heavy-duty, high powered washing equipment, and specialises in the installation of agricultural and industrial plumbing. It currently has 23 employees.
The parties were before the Court previously in relation to the issue of union recognition. In LCR16387, the Court recommended that the Company should recognise the Union on behalf of the employees in its membership. With regard to the issues now in dispute, the Union supplied figures to show that rates of pay in the Company are out of line with comparable employments, e.g. £129.76 (unskilled) and £259.53 - £270.34 skilled (non-craft) for workers in the Company, as against £214.08 (unskilled) and £310.43 skilled (non-craft) for regional workers. The Union claims that the Company has not applied the National Agreements in the past , although the Company claims that Phase 1 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) will be paid in September ,2000.
The current hours of work are as follows:
Monday 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
Tuesday to Friday 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.
Tea break 11.00 a.m. to 11.15 (paid)
Meal break 1.15 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. (unpaid)
The Union regards this as a 40.25 hour week whereas the Company regards it as a standard 39 hour week.
The Union claims that the Company does not provide a standard paid tea break. Up to March 2000, the tea break was at the expense of the employees. On the 6th of March, the Company added one hour's pay to the wages of the employees as compensation for 5x15 minute tea breaks.
The Union maintains that the Company has failed to provide a sick pay and pension scheme to the satisfaction of the employees.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 1st of March, 2000, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of July, 2000, in Carrick-on Shannon. The Union agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3. 1. Since the Court issued Recommendation No. LCR16387, the Company has refused to engage in dialogue with the Union.
2. The rates of pay supplied for regional workers are based on a national survey, quoting May, 1999 as a reference. They show that the Company workers are paid considerably less that these regional employees. The figures include phases 3 and 4 of Partnership 2000, which the Company has not paid in the past.
3. The hours of work in the Company consist of 1 x 7.25 and 4 x 8.25, giving a total of 40.25 hours per week. Until the 6th of March of this year, the tea break was entirely at the expense of the employees. The Company has not reduced the working week to 39 hours, when working time is considered with the tea breaks, and time and attendance are taken into account.
4. The Company has proposed introducing a pension scheme but has refused to discuss it, or the introduction of a sick pay scheme, with the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The number of Company employees has reduced from 35 to 23, due to a significant decline in the agri-business sector and increased competition. The majority of these workers do not wish to be represented by a union.
2. The Company offers rates of pay which compare favourably with the industry in the region, e.g. unskilled workers - national minimum wage (NMW) to £220, and skilled (non-craft) - £220 to £275.
3. Every year, the Company assesses pay increases for employees based on the following factors: (1) the performance of the business, (2) the performance of the individual and (3) the rate applied nationally. The percentage pay increases from 1997 to 1999, with one exception, exceeded the Partnership 2000 agreement.
4. The Company does apply the standard working week of 39 hours, if the 5 x 15 minute paid breaks are disregarded.
5. A sick pay scheme was in operation in the past but it became clear that people used this as additional holiday leave, and the scheme was discontinued. In cases of genuine hardship, the Company pays employees for a period of time. A contributory pension scheme has been approved, and started on the 1st of June, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of the parties to this dispute.
The claims made by the Union should, ideally, be resolved between the parties by collective
bargaining through agreed negotiating arrangements. It is clear, however, that while the Company has not formally rejected LCR16387, it is unwilling to implement that recommendation or to engage with the Union as the representative of its members.
The Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (SI No. 145 of 2000) made under Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, sets out procedures to be followed in circumstances in which negotiating procedures are not in place, and where collective bargaining fails to take place. These procedures are clearly applicable in the present case.
The Court recommends that the process established by the Code of Practise should now be put in place, and that the parties should fully co-operate in seeking to resolve the issues in dispute effectively and expeditiously. The parties should further jointly request the Labour Relations Commission to commence the process as quickly as possible
A copy of the procedures of the Code are appended to this recommendation
With regard to the Union's claim for a 39 hour working week, the Court is satisfied on the information provided that the current standard working hours in the employment are in excess of 40 per week. This is clearly out of line with established norms. The Court recommends that the standard working hours should now be reduced to 39 hours per week.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
17th July, 2000______________________
conDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.