FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : MILLERPAK LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Union application under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, Millerpak Limited, formally known as Foodpak Limited, has 25 employees, The Company recently merged with G.B. Miller and now trades as Millerpak. In April 2003 the Company moved premises from South Co. Dublin to North Co. Dublin.
The dispute before the Court concerns a previous claim by SIPTU, that the Union should be recognised for negotiation purposes. This was the subject of a Labour Court hearing under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17355. The recommendation was rejected by the Company in a letter dated 21st January 2003. The Union referred the case to the Labour Relations Commission on the 13th February 2003, under the Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. No.145 of 2000). However, the Company chose not to participate in the process.
The Union representing 8 employees, claims that the Company has failed to address any of the issues raised by them and only at the eleventh hour introduced policy changes. Issues raised: -(1) Rates of pay, (2) Sick Pay scheme, (3) Pension scheme, (4) Grievance procedure, (5) Disciplinary procedures, (6) Bullying and harassment procedures, (7) Re-location/Disturbance pay.
The Company states that it has been their practice to communicate directly with staff on all aspects of their conditions of employment. It enjoys good relations with its staff. The Company believes that most employees do not wish to join the Union or to be represented by the Union.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 2 (1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 30th July, 2003. Following which, the Court sought information which was exchanged between the parties and was finalised to the Court's satisfaction on the 6th November, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2 (1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 (the Act). The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and that the dispute is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction, the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action which should be taken having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, and to the dispute resolution and disciplinary procedures, in the employment concerned.
The Court notes that the Union represents approximately 8 employees out of a total of 20 employees.
The Court is fully satisfied that the issues raised by the Union in its submission to the Court, on behalf of its members, constitute the subject matter of a trade dispute which is properly before the Court for investigation.
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 taken account of 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.
There are no internal systems for consultation with, or involvement by, employees in matters affecting their employment or for resolving disputes.
The following are the recommendations of the Court:
Pay
Based on the information supplied, the Court understands that increases due under the terms of the Programme for Prosperity & Fairness (PPF) were not applied. The Court also notes that in the case of some of the claimants increases in pay in excess of the terms of PPF have been applied.
Therefore, where cost of living increases were applied, if they were not equal to or in excess of the terms of PPF, the Court recommends that the terms of PPF should be applied to the claimants involved in this case, according to their service with the company.
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. 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.
Any submission that the Union wishes to make with regard to the content of these procedures 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.
Sick Pay Scheme.
The Court recommends that the Company should introduce a formal sick pay scheme, which provides employees with paid leave during periods of certified sick leave for up to 10 days per annum.
Pension.
The Court recommends that the company should introduce a defined contribution pension scheme within a twelve-month period. The employer and the employees should share contributions equally.
Relocation/Disturbance Pay
For those three employees referred to in the Union submission who re-located from Kylemore Road to St. Margaret’s Road, Finglas, the Court recommends a once off lump sum payment of €500 each to be paid as compensation for the expense and inconvenience involved in the transfer of the company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20th November, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.