FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NOONAN SERVICES LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Pay rates 2. Shift pay 3. Overtime pay rates 4. Loss of earnings.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved on the contract cleaning industry and operates in 30 counties in Ireland. The Company employs in excess of 5,000 individuals nationally. The Company has a client who is an extremely large and important multinational employer at two sites in Limerick.
In April, 2001, as part of a cost-cutting exercise by their client, the Company was instructed to change the shift pattern so that individuals were required to work on an 8 hour shift basis over 5 days. There are 20 workers involved in this dispute, and their terms and conditions have changed since June, 2001. Prior to the changes in working hours, shift cover and pay rates, all staff worked a 4 x 12 hour flexible shift pattern over a seven day week and were paid a composite rate of euro 8.57 per hour. The Union claim that the changes were made unilaterally by the Company without any formal negotiations taking place. Overtime was paid at appropriate overtime rate norms.
As a result of these changes, the Union sought agreement on a new pay structure that would encompass basic rates and shift allowances, plus overtime payments. The Union also sought compensation for the loss of two hours overtime payments.
As no agreement could be reached locally, the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference took place on the 17th of October, 2001. As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd of January, 2002, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Their contract of employment offered the workers euro 8.57 per hour. There is no
facility in the contract to reduce this amount.
2. The Union was and still is prepared to enter into positive negotiations in respect of pay structures.
3. The current dispute is of the Company's making and any losses of revenue to the employer are being negated at the expense of the workers.
4. When offering the workers employment, the Company was quite specific that they would receive the benefit of phase 1 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is satisfied that it offers a competitive remuneration package to all of its employees.
2. The Company reject the Union's contention that its members have been forced to suffer a loss of earnings as a result of the introduction of the new shift arrangements in June, 2001.
3. Any concession to the Union's claim would be in breach of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
4. The Company is working on a very tight margin in relation to this particular contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that it is the practice of the Company to negotiate with SIPTU in respect of conditions of employment. The Court believes that it would have been preferable and more in keeping with good practice for the Company to have sought agreement with the Union on the changes in contract terms required by the Company's client. In that regard, it is noted that the Company had become aware of the Union's involvement on the 29th of March, 2001, when it sought a meeting with the Company to discuss issues in relation to the Limerick site.
Nonetheless, the Court accepts that a change in attendance patterns is necessary and that these changes justify adjustments in the rates applicable to the various shifts.
However, on the information provided to it, the Court is satisfied that the increases due under the Partnership 2000 agreement from April, 2000, onwards have not been applied to the rate of euro 8.57 established at that time. Furthermore, the Court does not accept that the rates introduced on the 1st of June, 2001, can reasonably be regarded as inclusive of the outstanding Partnership 2000 increases or the increases provided for by PPF (the 2% due in 1/4/01 and 5.5% due on 1/6/01).
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that the pay structure introduced on the 1st of June, 2001, be accepted subject to the following:-
1. The increases provided for under Partnership 2000, which fell due for payment between April, 2000, and the 1st of June, 2001, should now be paid to each individual in respect of his or her period of employment during that period.
2. The 2% due on the 1st of April, 2001, under the elaboration of PPF should similarly be paid.
3. The rates introduced on the 1st of June, 2001, should now be adjusted, with effect from that date, by the application of the increases referred to at 1 and 2 above, together with the 5.5% due in respect of the first phase of PPF.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th February, 2002______________________
HMCD/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.