FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CELTIC TECHNICAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Improvement in pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in 1992 and is involved in the upkeep and maintenance of bar utilities and products. The Company has successfully contracted for contracts with Guinness Ireland Ltd. throughout the period from its establishment to date.The present contract was renewable in March, 2002, and prior to the tendering process, Guinness announced its intention to reduce the number of contractors used from 7 to 3 and the Company was successful. The Company employs 99 staff. There are 87 technical members of the Union involved in this claim.
The Union approached the employers in an attempt to have collective negotiations with all contractors. The Employers resisted this approach. The matter was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission on 13th of March, 2002.
As no agreement could be reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th of May, 2002.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company rejects the Union's claim as it is a cost-increasing claim and, therefore, barred under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
2. Present rates of pay are at the upper end of payment to comparable employees in employments in direct competition to the employer.
3. The introduction of overtime rates would be detrimental to staff as the Company can confirm that staff are presently earning more through the field allowance payment than they would if this was replaced by defined overtime rates for specific additional hours worked.
4. The Company settlement proposal is a most fair and generous offer and is the most that the Company can countenance as a solution to this claim.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Workers have never been able to directly negotiate on or influence their pay structure and conditions of employment since this work was first contracted out.
2. The current rates are significantly below their main competitors rates and also below the Central Statistics Office figures for average industrial earnings.
3. It is totally unacceptable that employees of a Contractor Company are denied the right to negotiate pay on grounds that the contract with the Client Company does not allow for increases in pay over/above National Pay Rounds. As these employees are not party to negotiations between the contractor and the client, there must be a forum or mechanism established for pay reviews.
4. It is unacceptable that the Client and three Contractors agreed a new contract without any reference whatsoever to the unions claim which was known to them one year in advance.
5. The job description of all three categories have expanded to include current and future additional duties i.e. handling of industrial gases, productivity targets and promotional work.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the workers associated with this claim are newly organised and that their rates of pay have not been determined by collective bargaining. Thus, the Court considers that the claim comes within the exception in respect of newly organised employments contained in PPF and its predecessors.
The Court believes that the parties should enter negotiations with a view to concluding a comprehensive collective agreement which provides common conditions of employment as between original and transferred staff. Whilst these negotiations should commence as soon a possible, any agreement reached should be implemented in conjunction with the next review of contracts in August, 2004.
In the interim, the Court recommends the following adjustments in pay and conditions:
Basic Pay.
Basic pay should increase by 5% with effect from the date of acceptance of this recommendation. In addition the €635 bonus should be incorporated in basic pay.
Field Allowance.
The field allowance should increase by 5% with effect from the date of acceptance.
Other Allowances.
The Company's offer on improvements in lunch, van wash and on-call allowances should be accepted on the terms offered.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th June, 2002______________________
HMCD/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.