FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TAYTO LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr McHenry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Rates of pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. Tayto Limited operates a number of distribution depots throughout the country and has operated a depot in Tralee, Co. Kerry since 1997. The worker concerned commenced employment at the Tralee depot in April, 1997, as a part-time warehouse operative. He is contracted to work 25 hours per week including Saturday and is paid an hourly rate of £5.61. The dispute concerns the Union's claim on behalf of the worker for an increase in the hourly rate of pay and the payment of a fork-lift allowance. It argues that the storesperson in the New Ross depot is paid a higher rate of pay and is also in receipt of a fork-lift allowance. Management rejects the claim. It argues that the difference in the worker's hourly rate of pay and that of other depot employees is due to the different responsibilities and commitments pertaining to each different location.
In June, 1998, discussions took place between management and the worker following which management made the following offer:-
(i) Pay of an additional five hours per week.
(ii) Introduction of an additional week's pay as a mid-year bonus.
(iii) An additional £50 on Christmas bonus.
The worker rejected the offer on the basis that he was seeking an increase in the hourly rate of pay. Further discussions took place in April, 1999 when the Company offered to increase the worker's rate in line with the proposals tables in June, 1998, plus an element of retrospection.
The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference held under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th of March, 2000 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of October, 2000, the first date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the same hourly rate as that paid to the storesperson in New Ross.
2. The Company's argument that the higher rate incorporates extra productivity and reflects a higher volume of throughput is discriminatory and unfair. Workers operating in smaller depots require the same level of skills and organisational ability as operatives working in the bigger depots.
3. The worker operates a fork-lift and in the circumstances the Union's claim for the payment of a fork-lift allowance is justified.
4. The worker has operated on the basis of 30 hours per week since 1998, and the Company's offer of retrospection falls short by one year and is unacceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The apparent differences in the rates of pay throughout the country can be explained in terms of the different responsibilities and commitments that pertain to each specific location. For example, stock takes are required nightly in the New Ross depot while they are only completed weekly in Kerry.
2. The proposal to augment the worker's hours and the additional week's pay mid-year, plus an enhanced Christmas bonus represent a fair and reasonable attempt by the Company to address this claim. Comparisons with more favourable terms as applicable in another depot are irrelevant. Any claim for an improvement in the rate of pay must stand on its own merits. The Company's proposal meets this objective.
3. Concession of the Union's claim could have serious consequences for the viability of maintaining a depot in Kerry. The cost per carton would significantly increase.
4. The worker has flexibility in terms of the performance of his duties that is not enjoyed by any of his cited comparators.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the three areas of claim before it, the Court recommends as follows:
Retrospection on Payment for Hours of Work
The Court is satisfied that the Company's proposal is reasonable, given that the offer made in 1998 was not accepted, and the offer should be accepted by the Employee.
Shunt Grade Payment
The Company accepted at the hearing that this should be paid, and the Court recommends that this be paid from date of employment.
Increase in Hourly Rate
The Court recommends that the Employee accepts the Company's proposal to augment his hours, by paying for 30 Hours for the work undertaken.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
10th November, 2000______________________
FB/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.