FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : GREENSTAR MATERIALS RECOVERY LIMITED (FORMERLY NOBEL WASTE DISPOSAL LIMITED) (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Request by a Trade Union or excepted body for a determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR17398
BACKGROUND:
2. On 22nd January, 2003, the Court investigated a trade dispute between SIPTU and Noble Waste Disposal Limited pursuant to section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment), Act 2001 (the Act). On 3rd February, 2003, the Court issued Recommendation No. LCR17398 giving its opinion in the matter and its view as to the action which should be taken having regard to terms and conditions of employment, and to disputes resolution and disciplinary procedures, in the employment concerned.
By letter received by the Court on 18th, March 2003, SIPTU requested the Court to make a determination pursuant to section 6(1) of the Act. A Labour Court hearing in this matter was held on 14th August, 2003.
DETERMINATION:
Having heard the parties, the Court is satisfied that the dispute which is the subject of the aforementioned recommendation has not been resolved. The Court is further satisfied that the recommendation has not been fully accepted and implemented by the Company. In these circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate to make a determination in the same terms as the said recommendation. Accordingly, the Court determines as follows:
Rates of Pay.
The Company informed the Court that rates of pay for the staff concerned is currently €15.11 per hour in the case of drivers and €9.44 in the case of helpers. The Company have also submitted rates of pay applicable to similar grades in comparable employment. The Union did not submitted any information on rates in similar or comparable employments.
On the basis of the information before it, the Court accepted that the rates of pay currently applicable to the staff concerned are not out of line with those in comparable employment, and the Court does did not recommend any adjustment in those rates at that time.
As this determination is being made in the same terms as the recommendation it does not relate to rates of pay. The Court notes, however, that the Union now claims that the Company is not in fact paying the rates of pay notified to the Court.
Working Hours.
Employees commence work at 7.30 a.m. and finish at 5.00 p.m. There is a 30 minute paid lunch break and 20 minute paid morning break. The Company say that this amounts to less than a 44 hour week. The Union has claimed that normal working hours should be fixed at 39, after which overtime should be paid.
The Court accepts that a 39 hour week is now normal in the case of hourly paid employees. The Court can see no reason which would justify hourly paid staff in this employment being required to work a longer standard week. Accordingly, the Court determines that basic working hours be reduced to 39 within one month of the date of this recommendation and that overtime be paid, at current rates, thereafter. The Court further determines that for calculation purposes, a 30 minute paid lunch break should not be regarded as working time and one further paid break of 10 minutes per day should be regarded as part of working time.
Pension.
The Company proposed to put a defined contribution pension scheme in place in January, 2003. The contributions to the scheme would be €300 per annum each for employees and the Company. The Company further proposes that employees may opt to forgo other benefits in the nature of health insurance allowance, performance bonus allowance and non-accident bonus and have their value invested on their behalf in the pension scheme.
In the Court's view, the basic rate of funding proposed (€600 pa. divided equally between the Company and the employee) is unduly low and is unlikely to produce a pension of real benefit. The Court determines that a defined contribution of 4% of pay be made to the scheme by the Company and 2% by employees.
Should employees wish to divert the value of other benefits to the pension scheme this should be allowed by way of AVCs.
(Note. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court wishes to make it clear that in its recommendation No. LCR 17398, the Court intended that all employees affected by the Union’s claim would be entered in and retained as a member of the Company pension scheme. The said recommendation and this determination should be construed accordingly.)
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 its content 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 determine that the parties engage in collective bargaining in relation to terms and conditions of employment, and nothing contained in this determination should be construed as providing for collective bargaining.
Where difference 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.
Other Issues
The Court determines that all other conditions of employment in place should be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th September, 2003______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.