FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : SAM HIRE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Re-Hearing arising from DECP 031.
BACKGROUND:
2. In January, 2003 the Court held a preliminary hearing in relation to the Union's application under Section 2 (1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001. The issues in dispute related to the Union's claim for negotiating rights on behalf of its members in relation to pay, hours of work, sick pay scheme, pension scheme, grievance procedure, disciplinary procedures, bullying and harassment procedures etc,. In DECP 031, which was issued in March, 2003, the Court decided as follows:
"........ The Court in addressing this particular dispute has to decide whether the provisions of Section 2 have been complied with and if so whether to go ahead and carry out an investigation under Section 2(1) of the Act.
Despite the Company's statement that it was willing to engage in discussion with the Labour Relations Commission, the Court is satisfied that despite the efforts of the Labour Relations Commission the Company by its actions left the Advisory Officer with only one conclusion make, that the Company did not want to engage in discussions and did fail to observe the provision of the Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution. The Court is equally satisfied that the other provisions contained in Section (1) have been complied with.
The Court is of the view that the requirements of Section 2 have been complied with and accordingly in exercise of its powers under Section 2 (1) proposes to investigate the said dispute. The Court therefore proposes to proceed with the investigation and take written and verbal submissions from both parties on the issues outlined in the Court hearing."
A Court hearing was held on the 11th April, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.Pay.The rates of pay obtaining in the Company do not compare well with other employers in the industry, nor with rates paid in the Heiton Group of which the Company is a member.
2.Working Hours.The Union seeks the introduction of a maximum working week of 39 hours, and that premium payments be made for hours worked in excess of 39.
3.Sick Pay.( i)A sick pay scheme does not exist in the Company at present. The Union seeks the introduction of a sick pay scheme that provide benefits as follows:
Six weeks full pay (normal pay) less social welfare entitlements followed by a further six weeks at half the difference between normal pay and social welfare.
(ii) Such a scheme was introduced in a comparable companies ( LCR's 15954 and 15108 refer). A Group Company, Heitons have a sick pay scheme in place.
4.Pension scheme.There is no pension scheme at present in the Company. There is an immediate requirement for a good defined pension scheme. The Company should consult with the Union in the formation of a scheme.
5.Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.The Company's attitude to disciplinary/ grievance procedures is completely at variance with best practice as outlined in the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, Code of Practice on Disciplinary procedures Declaration Order 1996. The Union seeks that procedures be put in place in line with LCR's17236, and 17398, so that the Union can resolve its members' grievances in an orderly and professional manner.
6.Procedures for resolving disputes. The Union asks the Court to recommend a fair means of dispute resolution and disciplinary procedures wherein the employee will have the right to consult with and be represented by a registered trade union.
7.Health and Safety.To date, and despite the legal obligation to facilitate the selection of a Health and Safety representative from among the workforce, no worker representative exists in any work location within the Company.
8.Provision of Information. The Company has not complied with the terms of the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994. There is insufficient detail in the Company Booklet.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.Pay.The Company's pay rates compare more favourably than key competitors in the dedicated tool hire business.
2.Working Hours.The Company is open for business six days per week and operates on a 40 hour week basis. Staff work a rota system.Many competitor companies exceed this. There are variations within depots depending on size and location and local arrangements.No depots open for business on Saturday afternoons, Sunday's or Bank Holiday's. The practice and precedent in the Company is to pay overtime rates at time and a half.
3.Sick Pay.The Company proposes to introduce a sick pay scheme entitling workers to 15 days paid sick leave in a rolling 12 month period.
4.Pension Scheme.The Company is in the process of selecting a suitable PRSA carrier so that a standard PRSA scheme will be in place for all employees to have access to.
5.Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures.The Company has recently updated its Employee Handbook, which will be issued to all employees by the end of May, 2003.
6.Procedures for Resolving Disputes.The Company intends to set up a formal works committee comprising of one staff member representative from each of the 13 depots. The aim of this committee, which will meet every two months, is for employees to work with Management to maintain a good working environment.
7.Health and Safety.The Company is agreeable to have a health and safety representative appointed.
8.Provision of Information.The Company is agreeable to have this issue addressed within the Terms of Employment (Information), Act 1994.
RECOMMENDATION:
These claims brought in respect of employees who are members of SIPTU and are employed by the Company in the Dublin/ Wicklow region. There are 52 employees in this region of which 26 are members of the Union. It is noted that pay is determined by the Company on a Regional basis. Consequently it is appropriate to regard the Dublin/Wicklow region as a discrete unit for the purposes of this claim. Hence, the recommendations which follow relate only to that region.
The Court has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations. It has also had regard to the entirety of labour relations practices engaged in by the employer, as they were outlined to the Court in the course of the investigation. The Court has also had regard to the labour relations practices engaged in by associated employers, as it is required to do by Section 2(2) of the Act.
The Court has also taken account of the relevant Codes of Practice made pursuant to Section 42 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, as it is required to do by Section 42(4) of that Act.
The Court recommends as follows:
Pay:
The minimum rate applicable should be the average rate for the country as a whole. Based on the information provided to it the Court recommends that the following basic rates apply in the region in question:
Van Driver: €381 per week.
Counterhand: €398 per week.
Fitter:
(fully qualified) €502 per week.
Note 1. Where any individual currently has a rate or pay in excess of that provided above, they should continue to hold that rate on a personal basis.
Note 2. Where individual van drivers are allowed the use of the company van for private purposes this should continue.
Note 3. Pay should in future be adjusted by the terms of the Sustaining Progress Agreement
Working Hours:
In line with the norm in other employments, standard working hours should be reduced to 39 per week. Overtime should be paid at the rate of time and a half.
It is noted that the Company does not work on Saturday afternoon or on Sundays or Public Holidays. Consequently the Court does not consider it appropriate or necessary to recommend a rate for overtime on those days.
Sick Pay:
It is noted that the Company has brought forward proposals for the introduction of a sick pay scheme which will give qualifying employees an entitlement to 15 days paid sick leave in a rolling 12 month period. The Court recommends that this scheme be accepted.
Pension:
The Court recommends that a defined contribution pension scheme be introduced for all employees. There should be a contribution of 4% payable by the company and a further 4% payable by the employee. The scheme should be finalised within three months of the date of this recommendation.
Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures:
The employer should put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. NO. 146 of 2000). Consistent with the code, the company procedure should provide for trade union representation in processing individual grievances and disciplinary matters, where an employee wishes to avail of such representation. The procedure should also provide for the full utilisation of the normal dispute resolution machinery of the State, including the reference of disputes to conciliation, the Rights Commissioner service and the Court, as appropriate. Similar procedures should be put in place to cover complaints of bullying and harassment.
This procedure should be put in place within one month from the date of this recommendation. Any submission that the Union wishes to make with regard to its content should be taken into consideration. If there is any dispute in relation to the compatibility of the proposed procedures with the Code of Practice, the question may be processed under Section 43 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
Procedures for Resolving Disputes:
The Court cannot and does not recommend that the parties engage in collective bargaining in relation to terms and conditions of employment and nothing contained in this recommendation should be construed as providing for collective bargaining.
Where differences arise between the company and employees in relation to their terms and conditions of employment, such issues should be processed through the grievance procedure referred to above and if unresolved should be processed through a Rights Commissioner or the Court as appropriate. No form of strike, industrial action or interference with normal working should be engaged in by either party until the procedures are resorted to and exhausted.
Health and Safety:
Arrangements should be made to have a safety representative appointed in accordance with Section 13 (3) of the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act, 1989.
Provision of Information:
The Union has raised questions concerning the provision of information to employees concerning their terms of employment. The Court recommends that this matter be addressed within the Terms of Employment (Information) Act, 1994.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th April, 2003______________________
TODDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.