FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ANGLO IRISH BEEF PROCESSORS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Loss of weekly bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the meat industry and has a number of plants throughout the country. The issue relates to two former employees and one current employee who claim that when they requested time off (½hour early), were informed by the supervisor they would not loose their weekly bonus. The weekly bonus was not paid by the Company.
The Company argue, that following a dispute and industrial action in 2001, agreement was reached which included a commitment for no cost increasing claims in accordance with the terms of the Partnership for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) and a Programme for Further Relationship. The Union sought a new bonus scheme for packers in the boning hall at the Rathkeale plant. Proposals agreed by the Union on the 12th October, 2001 and which came into effect on the 9th November, 2001, stated that the packers would need to be in every day and if not, the bonus would not be paid with the following exceptions:
- Lateness up to 30 minutes would not effect the weekly bonus
- Absence of a statutory nature
The claim could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The workers referred their claim to the Labour Court on the 3rd June, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1The workers sought and were granted time off by their supervisor, i.e. to leave a½hour early. They were told they would not loose their weekly bonus payment as a result. When they received their wages, the full weekly bonus had been deducted.
2. The Union agree that they are aware of the rules regarding the bonus scheme, but argue that having received the time off and the assurance from the supervisor in relation to the bonus, the Company are now going back on their word.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company agreed that the time off requested was granted but no assurance on the bonus payment was given by the supervisor.
2 The non-payment of the bonus to the individuals was strictly in accordance with the agreement reached between the Company and the Union.
3. If the Company is forced to make changes, they would have to consider the viability of the scheme. The scheme was introduced as part of a plan to reduce absence by encouraging attendance through a bonus.
4. All the employees in the scheme were in full possession of the requirements for payment of the bonus prior to and after it was introduced.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is accepted by the Union that the agreement specifies that an employee who goes away early from work will not receive the weekly bonus.
However, in this case the Union's claim is that the supervisor gave permission to the claimants to leave while also informing them that their bonus would not be stopped. This was refuted by the Company.
The Court, given the information before it, is not in a position to recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
30th_March, 2004______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.