FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DUBLIN FERRYPORT TERMINALS (DFT) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Bonus
BACKGROUND:
2. Dublin Ferryport Terminals Limited provides import/export services to in-house and external customers in Lo/Lo container business to and from Europe. The case before the Court concerns the non-payment of a bonus to 10 Rubber Tyre Gantry (RTG) drivers and 3 other dockside operatives who are permanent employees of the Company. The Company already pays the bonus to Gantry Crane Drivers. The Union claims that the bonus agreement of the 28th September, 1999 states that when an employee becomes permanent he will share in the bonus payment. The Union wants this bonus to apply to the employees mentioned above.
Management rejected the Union's claim. The Company states that a bonus is paid to Gantry Crane Drivers whose employment pre-dates that of the RTG drivers. The Company claims that a joint agreement in 1996 provided for staff then employed by the Company (15) to share the "pot" which was paid on a twice per year basis. RTG employees were not part of this agreement.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation conferences were held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th December, 2002 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 13th February, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The failure to pay the workers the bonusis discriminatory and unfair.
- 2. The amendments to the 1999 Company/Union Agreement clearly states that on becoming permanent workers are entitled to participate in the bonus scheme.
3. Management proposed a separate bonus scheme for the claimants but the terms were not acceptable to the members.
4. 1.The Company introduced RTG equipment in 1999 and recruited staff to operate it. The conditions of employment which the new staff signed up to made no provision for involvement in the bonus scheme.
2. Management has always stated its willingness to include all permanent staff in sharing the "pot" provided agreement can be reached with all permanent staff and provided there is no overall cost increase to the Company.
3. The Company has indicated its intent to operate a unified incentive bonus scheme equally applicable to all permanent employees as a constituent of its proposals for change consistent with the introduction of the terms of the Organisation of Working Time Act, 1997.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has been asked to interpret an agreement made in 1999 and adjudicate on whether the bonus referred to in the agreement was intended to be confined to 15 specified employees only or whether it should be interpreted as applying to all permanent employees of the company. Having listened to all the arguments of the parties and having examined the relevant documentation, the Court is of the view that the agreement does not confine the bonus payment to 15 specified employees but confines it to all permanent staff in the DFT area of the company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
10th March, 2003______________________
LW/LWDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.