FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WHELANS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Pay differential for freezer room staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a frozen food distribution company serving the retail and catering trade. It currently employs three hundred and sixty staff across four different sites. Staff working in the freezer room receive the same rate of pay as staff working in the chilled areas. The Union is seeking a pay differential of €1.50 per hour for its members for hours worked in the freezer room. The Company rejects the claim.
The dispute 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 Labour Court on the 6th of August, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Most chilled products are stored in temperatures of between 0 degrees Celsius to plus 6 degrees Celsius. In the freezer room, which contains frozen foods the maximum temperature allowed in minus 18 degrees Celsius.
2 . The workers concerned should receive an additional €1.50 per hour for hours worked in the freezer room.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All staff receive a premium rate of pay even though some may not work in the freezer room. The rate, when established was determined on the basis that staff were working in the freezer room.
2. The claim cannot be conceded as it would have knock-on effects. It is cost increasing and is in breach of the Social Partnership Agreement Sustaining Progress.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Company made the case that the claim for a pay differential was in breach of the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
The Court is not satisfied that the claimants can argue that the claim is eligible, as they are a newly organised group, given that they have been in the Union since 2000 and made the claim in 2002.
The Court, therefore, finds the claim to be in breach of the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
15th December, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.