FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GRAEPALS (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. Pay/sick-leave/canteen/garment cleaning costs.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures steel perforated products and employs 40 workers. The Union has 24 members of which 16 are general operatives. The Union is claiming an increase on the general operative basis pay rate outside the terms of the national agreement. Other issues to be considered are:
Sick Pay:The present arrangements are 3 weeks full pay per year, the Union's claim is for 6 weeks full pay per year.
Canteen arrangements: Food preparation of 1 hour and clean up time of 30 minutes is unacceptable to Company.
Garment cleaning costs. Workers pay 50% of the cost of cleaning their protective garments. These garments are required under Health & Safety legislation.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 26th June, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th September, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The hourly rate of approximately €8.50 per hour is low pay in a viable and profitable company.
2. The workers agreed to forgo a 3% pay increase due under a previous agreement on the basis that the company at that time were experiencing financial difficulties. That 3% was never paid despite the Company moving to profitability some years ago.
3. 6 weeks full sick pay is a reasonable claim and well within the norm given the service of the employees.
4. To expect employees to contribute 50% of the cost of protective equipment required under health and safety legislation is unreasonable and is not general practice within the industry.
5. The canteen arrangements have been in place since the Company commenced operation and the Union see no reason for change.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company has paid all increases due to staff under the terms of the current and previous national agreements.
2. The claim is cost increasing and as such is precluded under the programme for Sustaining Progress.
3. The Company wants the status quo to remain with the garment cleaning costs, which requires employees to pay 50% of the costs, ie. 71cents for a boiler suit and 90cents for a jacket and trousers.
4. The present sick pay scheme allows for 3 weeks full pay per year after probation. The Company is willing to increase this to
- 2 weeks full pay after probation
- 4 weeks full pay after 3 years
- 6 weeks full pay after 5 years.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of the parties and recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis:
- The Union should accept the Company's offer of a 3% increase in excess of the basic terms of Sustaining Progress.
- In return the Union and Management should review the present catering arrangements so as to ensure that the time spent in preparing food is kept at the minimum necessary.
- The Union's claim on sick pay should be conceded
- The Company should cover the entire cost of laundering protective clothing.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th_September 2003______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.