FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WESSEL CABLE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Introduction of a summer bonus for supervisory and clerical staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns 7 clerical/supervisory workers and is for the introduction of a summer bonus. The claim was first made in 1995 when the Union sought a bonus of one week's pay for the workers concerned. This bonus had been paid to a number of other groups of workers. The claim was the subject of LCR14995 and was rejected by the Labour Court.
The issue was raised again in July, 2002. The Company rejected the claim but offered to convert 3 additional days' long-service holiday leave into holiday pay for the workers concerned. (The Company had earlier made an offer of 3 days' additional long-service holiday leave to general operatives (GOs) in 2002). The Union stated that it would be prepared to accept 5 days' holiday payment but this was rejected by the Company.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of December, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 13th of May, 2003, in Athlone, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since 1995, the Company has introduced a profit-related bonus scheme for management staff. This means that the workers concerned are the only group who do not benefit from a bonus payment. While the bonus scheme may not yet be yielding payments, it has in the past and is likely to again as the Company returns to profitability.
2. The workers concerned are key production support staff. New employees in production receive the summer bonus whilst the workers concerned, with years of experience and loyalty to the Company, do not.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim was already addressed at the Labour Court in 1995 and was rejected.
2. The bonus awarded to the GOs was as a result of a productivity related Labour Court Recommendation in 1989 (LCR12254). The workers concerned cannot compare themselves to this group.
3. The Company is not in a financial position to make any payments outside of those already agreed. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the National Wage Agreements. The Company did make an offer to the workers but it was rejected.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is satisfied that different agreements were made with groups across the Company in the early 1990s, resulting in packages for each group.
The Court, having considered the written and oral submissions, finds no reason to alter the findings of the Court in 1995.
The Court, therefore, rejects the Union's claim in this case.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
26th May, 2003______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.