FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROBERT ROBERTS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Increase In Basic Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. Roberts Roberts is a manufacturing and distribution company and employs 180 people. It has extensive franchise arrangements for the distribution of a range of consumer products and also operates two manufacturing units, KP Snacks and Tea & Coffee at its location in Tallaght. SIPTU represents the industrial, warehousing and clerical employees.
In late 1999, the Company reached agreement with the warehouse staff for an increase in pay of £15 per week, plus £10 per week attendance allowance. The Union sought similar increases on behalf of general operatives employed in manufacturing on the basis that a link existed between the basic pay in the warehouse and manufacturing staff since 1991. Local level discussions took place following which Management's proposal for pay increases based on increased productivity was rejected by the workers.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Substantial progress was made on the introduction of a range of changes in return for an increase in basic pay and an attendance allowance, but management's insistence that the introduction of Autopay was an integral part of the agreement was unacceptable to the union. As agreement could not be reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 15th of March, 2000 under section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relation Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of May, 2000.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Many of the workers are paid cash and will not countenance the introduction of Autopay, due to inconvenience, bank charges and the loss of a condition of employment.
2. Considerable agreement has been reached between both sides on the way forward. There are eight clauses in the proposed agreement and only one clause is unacceptable to the workers.
3. The Union is seeking that the Court recommends that Autopay be introduced on a voluntary basis and that a payment of £500 be made for the workers' co-operation with its introduction.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Agreement was reached with the warehouse staff on the following:
- Ongoing co-operation with the introduction of new technology.
- The implementation of Autopay .
- Rostering of a 7am to 7pm working day in principle, in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997, based on a 39 hour working week at standard rate.
2. The Company believes that the offer made to the factory staff is a generous offer, which could result in weekly increases of over £22. Already the basic rate is in the region of 20% higher than the Company's main competitors.
3. The Company understands the workers' fears in relation to targets. To this end it offered a two-week trial period with a staff and management committee to satisfy all that it is achievable and to discuss any reasonable adjustments that have to be made. The offer of a trial period still exists and the period can be extended if necessary.
4. The Company must remain competitive with other similar industries, not only in Ireland but more importantly in the United Kingdom. Any increases in costs without commensurate increases in productivity will erode competitiveness and could have disastrous consequences for KP Ireland.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all aspects of this claim, recommends that the proposal for an increase in pay should be accepted by the Union; including compulsory acceptance of an Autopay system. The Court further recommends that on acceptance of the proposal in full the productivity element of the proposals should be adjusted and paid retrospectively to 1st April 2000.
The Court notes the difficulties experienced by certain individuals who are already on the Autopay system. At the hearing the Company gave a commitment that these difficulties would be addressed. The Court recommends that these difficulties should be dealt with, as a matter of urgency and any difficulties in future should similarly be given priority. The Court recommends that management must in future ensure that the payment date is strictly observed.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
12th June, 2000______________________
FB/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.