FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AC NIELSEN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SALES MARKETING & ADMINISTRATIVE UNION OF IRELAND DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. 1. Increase in hourly rate from €10.16 to €15.00, with extra payments for Saturday and Sunday work. 2. Increase in mileage rate from 51c to 90c per mile 3. Payment of a lunch allowance of €10 per day. 4. Payment of rentals on home telephones.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is one of the world's leading market research companies. It is located in Citywest Business Campus in Tallaght, Dublin 24. It employs approximately 153 workers of which 48 are based in the Republic of Ireland. The Company is non-unionised and has a comprehensive Human Resource department that is proactive in meeting the needs of the employees.
There are four issues before the Court, namely; pay, mileage rate, lunch allowance and home telephone rental.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The issues in dispute were referred to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission in accordance with the Code of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Resolution
(Declaration) Order 2000, S.I. 145 of 2000. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th of November, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th of January, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an increased hourly rate for it's members up to €15 per day and a lunch allowance for all members of €10 per day
2. The Union wishes the mileage rate to be brought into line with Civil Service rates as opposed to the flat rate currently being paid. It also believes that the Company should pay the full telephone rental cost of its employees.
3. The Union believes that all the issues in question could have been resolved by a direct meeting between the Union and the Company.
.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company is satisfied that its current hourly rate of pay and terms and conditions of employment for file audit staff is very competitive.
2. The Company has a proactive HR function and bimonthly forums where employees can talk to management directly.
3. The Company has a grievance procedure but it does not go as far as the Code of Practice on Grievance Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000).
RECOMMENDATION:
It is noted that the Company do not recognise the Union for negotiation purposes and that the Union have not claimed formal recognition or negotiation rights. It is clear to the Court, however, that in respect of many of the issues raised in this referral it is both necessary and desirable that the parties engage in some degree of discussion for clarity to be reached on their respective positions and intentions.
It is further noted that the Company's internal grievance procedure does not provide for representation of individuals by a trade union. This is not in conformity with the statutory code of practice on grievance procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000). The Court recommends that the procedure be amended to conform with the code of practice in that regard and that where employment related grievances are not resolved through the internal procedures the Union should be afforded facilities to represent it's members on an individual basis.
With regard to the issues referred, the Court recommends as follows:
1.Pay.
In order to succeed in this claim it would be necessary for the Union to satisfy
the Court that the rates of pay of the workers concerned are out of line with that of similarly graded employees in comparable employment. No such information has been provided. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
2.Mileage Rate.
The mileage rate currently applicable appears to be out of line. The Court recommends that the parties discuss an adjustment in the current rates and that in so doing they should have regard to the current mileage costs identified by motoring organisations.
3.Lunch Allowance.
Lunch allowances are normally payable where a worker is detained from his or her normal base for a defined period. The Court recommends that the parties should discuss a rate of meal allowance. In those discussions regard should be had to the current arrangements in respect of those employees in receipt of this allowance.
4.Home Telephone Rental.
It is noted that current arrangements are newly introduced. The Court recommends that the position be further reviewed in 12 months time.
The matters referred in this recommendation which require further discussion between the parties should be finalised by the end of February, 2004. Matters outstanding at that time may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
21st January, 2004______________________
M.G.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.