FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PJ CARROLL & COMPANY - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. "50 Hour Issue".
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1984 the Company introduced a Standard Hours Plan for Dublin based van crews. In effect it was an incentive scheme which required each crew to work an 8 hour day over a five day week and an employee's gross weekly wage was determined by multiplying the hourly rate by 50 standard hours. In 1989 the Company introduced a reduction in the working week from 40 hours to 37.5 hours without loss of pay, effectively increasing the hourly rate by over 6%. The Union claims that the van crews should have their rate recalculated to reflect the change. Management rejected the claim. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held in February, 2003 at which the parties agreed to have the issue examined by an independent third party. His report recommended that the parties enter into further negotiations on the issue. At a resumed conciliation conference held in October, 2003 the Company's offer of a once-off lump sum payment to the claimants was rejected by the Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in October, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 13th January, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's intention to address the issue at negotiations as recommended by the mediator was on a minimal cost basis. The offer of a "modest" lump sum payment to the claimants is not acceptable.
2. The Union's claim is supported by a long standing and currently operational agreement - The 50 hours Standard Plan Agreement. The Company's alteration to its application to the van crews pay was done without consultation or agreement. In doing so the Company retained a 6.66% shortfall in the claimants' pay for over nine years. This is income which should now be returned to them.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1989 the Company concluded an agreement on the 37.5 hour week with the Group of Unions. The van crews were involved in these discussions. Agreement was reached because the Unions accepted that there would be no increase in unit costs.
2. To have left van crews outside this arrangement would have instantly led to follow on claims from all other workers covered by the arrangement.
3. The van crews rates of pay compare favourably with other companies in the industry.
4. The Company believes that its offer of a modest once off payment is the appropriate way to resolve the dispute.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is of the view that the dispute should be disposed of by the payment to each individual concerned of a lump-sum of €1,750 in full and final settlement of all claims arising from the reduction in the working week.
The other aspects of the independent third party's report should be implemented.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th January, 2004______________________
TODChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.