FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY AGRIBUSINESS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay and allowances
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1991 the Agri Division of the Kerry Group and the Union made an agreement regarding the payment and manner of working of milk collection drivers. The mainstay of that agreement at the time was that the Company would be as efficient in the collection of milk as their competitors. Provision for drivers to do other work , which would be paid at a premium in order that they could increase their earnings was made in the agreement. In March 2000, the Union served a claim for a substantial increase in their basic pay.
As no agreement could be reached locally the matter was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held. As no agreement could be reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on the 10th of October, 2001, under section 26(1)(a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th of February, 2002, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union have no difficulty sitting down with management and discussing re-organisation and efficiencies.
2. The corner stone of any agreement would have to be a substantial basic salary. Failure to reach agreement on basic salary will result in members taking industrial action.
3. The Company , under its new proposal, are proposing a decrease of €1,315.52 (£1,036.06) per annum in meal allowances.
- 4. The use of contractors should be reduced rather than increased.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not prepared to consider any cost increasing claims for improvements in pay or conditions of employment other than those provided in clause 3 and 5 of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
- 2. It is envisaged under the new proposals that full time drivers would have to work only c.203 days per year.
- 3. The Company will not consider any proposal which seeks an increase in basic pay
4. The Company's approach and proposals are fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
In so far as the Union’s claim is for a straight increase in basic pay, it is clearly precluded by clause 11 of PPF and the Court cannot recommend its concession. There is, however, potential to improve earnings through restructuring and reorganisation.
The Court notes that proposals in that regard have been tabled by the Company. The Court further notes that in their present form these proposals are unacceptable to the Union. However, the parties should explore the possibility of modifying those aspects of the proposals which are regarded as unacceptable, and finding an agreed basis on which restructuring could proceed.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into an intensive process of negotiation on the Company’s proposal within a period of three weeks from the date of acceptance of this Recommendation. These negotiations should proceed without preconditions on either side and should be brought to finality within a further period of three months (or such longer period as may be agreed). Any issues outstanding at the end of this period may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th March, 2002______________________
HMCD/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Helena McDermott, Court Secretary.