FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UDV IRELAND GROUP - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Maternity Pay
2. Redundancy Position For Job Sharers
3. Overtime Payment For An Individual
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the processing and bottling of Cream liqueurs and Spirits and employs approximately 250 workers. The Union's claims are as follows:
1. MATERNITY LEAVE:
While on maternity leave employees receive their statutory entitlement of 14 weeks' maternity leave paid at a rate of 70% of the average reckonable weekly wage. The Union lodged a claim for a top up of the benefit to full wages.
2. REDUNDANCY FOR JOB SHARERS:
The Union is seeking that the calculation of service related redundancy payments for workers who job share should be on a pro rata basis with full-time employees.
3. OVERTIME:
This issue relates to one worker. He had worked in the process department since 1981 and was paid overtime at a rate of time and one half for the first four hours and double time thereafter. In 1986 he moved to the dispatch area. Overtime payable in respect of Saturdays was at the rate of double time between 7.00am and 8.30am and time and a half after 8.30am. In 1992 the worker realised that the time worked from 7.00am and 8.30am was paid at a rate of time and a half. On querying this he was informed that the change came about by agreement and the worker was aware of this change as part of his transfer.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 14th July, 2000 at which no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 9th August, 2000. A Court hearing was held on the 29th August, 2000.
CLAIM 1: MATERNITY LEAVE
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. Many workers in the public and semi state sectors are paid in full while on maternity leave.
2. In recent years paid maternity leave is increasingly being offered as a condition of employment in the private sector.
3. Guinness has being topping up maternity leave payments to workers since 1994. Due to the recent merger of UDV and Guinness, the maternity leave scheme is of particular relevance to the claim as workers feel that they are entitled to no less that their Guinness colleagues in respect of maternity leave payment.
4. The cost implications of the claim are not prohibitive. The Union recognises that the statutory element of the claim is met. With a company which enjoys the profit margins of UDV Ireland, the bare minimum is no longer sufficient to meet workers' expectations
5. The Social partners have identified family- friendly work arrangements and work life balances as core themes in the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The introduction of paid maternity leave is recognised as one such positive measure to advance the family - friendly agenda at enterprise level. The major benefits of family - friendly work arrangements include increases in productivity, higher motivation; increased staff retention and improved industrial relations. The majority of employers saw their family- friendly initiatives as self financing. In this context the Union perceives its claim as being self financing.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company rejects the suggestion that it's terms and conditions are out of line with industrial norms. The overwhelming majority of manufacturing companies have similar arrangements to UDV.
2. This is a cost - increasing claim (with impact wider than the claimants' group) and precluded under the terms of the National Agreement. SIPTU has suggested that Annex IV of the P.P.F. Agreement justifies concession of the claim - the Company understands that these provision are intended to focus on flexibility as opposed to improving pay arrangements. The Company understands that a National Framework has been established to expand on these issues.
3. On the legislation front, the Company understands that the Programme for Government includes a review of the Maternity Act and a Report is to be submitted to Government this year.
CLAIM 2: REDUNDANCY - JOBSHARERS
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
1. It is unfair and inequitable for the Company not to recognise the entire service (i.e. combining any existing full time service with part time service) of workers who take up the option of transferring from working in a full time capacity to Job Sharing.
2. In respect of redundancy calculations job sharers should not be treated in a less favourable manner. It is a deterrent to workers taking up the part time option and to the development of the flexible organisation of working time generally.
3. The Union has provided the Company with evidence to show that the calculation of redundancy payments on a pro-rata basis is the norm.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company offers a job-sharing facility to staff in certain circumstances and one of the scheme's provisions outlines calculation arrangements in the event of a redundancy situation arising:
"It is important to note that in the event of redundancy or any severance arrangement, that calculation of severance pay will be based on the job-share rate. However, during the trial period, this will be based on your full rate of pay."
2. The Company does no concede that this approach is unfair.
3. The Company's approach to calculating severance for job-sharers recognises full service, i.e. the multiplier (say 5 x weeks per year) is applied to the total number of years in employment. Pay is based on the job-share rate. If an ex-gratia severance/redundancy payment is intended to in some way "compensate" for future loss, then this appears totally reasonable. Furthermore, it corresponds to the Statutory Redundancy calculation provisions.
4. The Company understands that there are no norms established on this point.
CLAIM 3: OVERTIME
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Union's position is that the worker concerned was paid double time from 7:00am to 8:30am on Saturdays from the commencement of his employment with the Company.
2. In 1986 agreement was reached to red circle all of the worker's conditions including the overtime and early start conditions.
3. The company has breached this agreement by reducing the rate of overtime payable without consultation and agreement.
4. The Union's claim is that the Company honours its agreement from 1986 in relation to the red circling of all of the terms and conditions of employment inclusive of the Saturday overtime rate of double time before 8:30am and time and a half thereafter. Therefore, it is seeking compensation for the loss of earnings from the time that the Company ceased to pay the double time rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The Company does not accept that the worker had a red circled arrangement entitling him to day work overtime arrangements i.e double time on Saturday after 3.5 or 4 hours.
2. The claimant is paid in accordance with the agreed arrangements as per the 1984 Company/Union Agreement.
3. The worker's red circling arrangement applied to his basic rate as per his letter of appointment to the position of Warehouse Dispatch Clerk duties dated 22nd April 1986. It does not entitle him to carry forward specific departmental arrangements. This arrangement is in line with other groups who have red circling arrangements applied to them.
4. On foot of the worker's claim, the Union's Food, Drink and Tobacco Branch have formally submitted a similar claim for its workers (100+staff). Therefore, there are clearly repercussive effects.
5. The worker enjoys very favourable terms and conditions of employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given consideration to all aspects of the claims presented.
The Court recommends as follows:-
Maternity Pay
The Court is satisfied that no evidence was produced to indicate that the company were out of line with comparable companies. However, the Court is conscious of Clause 4 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness on the promotion of family friendly initiatives. Therefore, the Court recommends that in the event of the company requiring changes similar to the changes secured by Guinness as part of its agreement in 1994 the Court recommends that a maternity payment should form part of such an agreement.
Job Sharing
The Court is of the view that the company's policy on the calculation of severance payments for job sharers is fair and reasonable and should be accepted by the Union.
Overtime
The Court is satisfied that the arrangements which Mr. Farrell had agreed with the company in 1986, did not extend to preserving a double time payment for working from 7am to 8.30am on Saturdays, which is the rate which applies to day workers. Mr Farrell has been a shift worker since 1992 and there is no evidence to support the contention that his
overtime conditions, which he held as a day worker in 1986, would be extended to his work
as a shift worker in 1992.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3 October, 2000______________________
TOD/SHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.