FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SAINT- GOBAIN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Christmas bonus
BACKGROUND:
2. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Ireland is based in Kilrush, Co Clare. It is involved in the design, manufacture and marketing of flexible, high performance composites for use in severe and specialised environments. It employs 116 staff of which 110 are represented by SIPTU.
The Company has paid a discretionary bonus at Christmas each year. In August 2002 the Director of Operations announced that the Company proposed to introduce an incentive-based bonus scheme, based on four factors. The scheme would guarantee employees a base payment bonus with an opportunity to earn a bonus based on performance.
In November 2002 the Union wrote to management and stated that it expected their members to be paid the Christmas Bonus on the same basis as heretofore. The Union were willing to enter into discussions on the new bonus scheme.
In December 2002 the Company paid the non-union staff an incentive -based bonus of
€638. The members of SIPTU received a discretionary bonus of €533 which was in line with previous payments under the old scheme. The difference between the two bonus systems being €105.
The dispute, relating to the amount of Christmas bonus paid to SIPTU employees, was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the the Labour Court on 6th August 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The different amounts paid in Christmas bonus in 2002 bear no relation to the contribution of the category of staff concerned.
2. No scientific criteria exist on how all non-union members could have contributed more than Union members and, therefore, earned an additional bonus.
3. It is unfair that a Christmas bonus, recognising the contribution to the success of the Company of all employees equally, should suddenly be paid in a discriminatory way.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company introduced the incentive-based bonus scheme in a genuine attempt to improve the employees' potential to earn an enhanced bonus.
2. The Union specifically requested the payment of a discretionary bonus of €533 which was in line with bonus payments under the old scheme.
3. The Company agreed to pay the differential between the incentive-based bonus and discretionary bonus when agreement was reached on the proposed new bonus scheme. No agreement was reached.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court accepts that the Company paid the €638 due under the new scheme to those it believed had accepted or at least not rejected the new scheme.
It would appear that the Union did not want to be compromised by accepting this payment without having the opportunity to have an input into the new scheme. Unfortunatley, the new scheme has now been discontinued.
The Court having considered the written and oral submissions recommends that the parties enter in to immediate discussions on options for an acceptable new scheme.
On agreement to such a scheme the Company should pay the claimants the €105 in dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
1st December, 2003______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.