FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : STERILE TECHNOLOGIES IRELAND LTD (S.T.I.) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Union application under the Industrial Relations(Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. Sterile Technologies Ireland Ltd. (STI) is the holder of the Joint Waste Management Board contract for the collection, transportation and disposal of healthcare risk waste and clinical waste in Ireland. STI is part of a larger predominately Irish-owned enterprise, Sterile Technologies Group (STG) Ltd. The total employment of the Group is 300, the Irish operation, specifically, the Dublin operation, employs a total of 15 direct employees, 6 drivers, 9 warehouse operatives. Given the small size of the Company's Irish operation they have always maintained a policy of dealing directly with each of its employees.
The Company made it clear that it will not enter into any process which could be construed as recognition of SIPTU and refused to participate in the procedures under the Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. No.145 of 2000) at the Labour Relations Commission (LRC)(S.I. No. 76 of 2004 had not been enforced). The Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court for investigation under the Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
The Union's issues before the Court are as follows
- A substantial increase in pay;
- A reduction in weekly working hours to 39;
- Health & Safety issues;
- A Sick Pay Scheme.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1Substantial increase in Pay
The Company applied a 2% increase in pay in 2004. Basic pay had not increased since 2000.
2. The 17% paid out under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) and the more recent 7% paid out under part one of Sustaining Progress (SP) were not applied. The Company viewed this 2% as sufficient.
3.Reduction of weekly hours to 39
The Union claims that the figures put forward by the Company are incorrect and that workers work a 41 hour week and not 39 as claimed by the Company.
4.Health & Safety issues
The Union confirms that there has been some improvements in the issuing of "Personal Protection Equipment" (gloves), but request the Company to apply 'Best Industry Practice' in all matters pertaining to Health & Safety & Welfare of all staff in the operation of this potentially dangerous industry.
5.Sick Pay Scheme
The Union request that the Company introduce a Sick Pay Scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1Substantial increase in Pay
The earnings for Drivers currently exceeds the maximum pay rate for Rigid Drivers as per the referenced surveys by IBEC and CSO submitted to the Court.
2.Reduction of weekly hours to 39
The Company has made significant progress in reducing the working week from 48 hours in March 2000 to a maximum of 39 hours since October, 2001.
3. All drivers who are on day work currently operate a net 39 hour week.
4. All warehouse operatives who are on a 3 cycle rotating shift work, enjoy a 37.5 hour working week. In light of the above the Company maintains that the claim for a reduction in weekly working hours is unfounded.
5.Health & Safety issues
No issues have been made known to the Company on any aspect relating to the Health & Safety of workers or operational procedures.
6. The Company maintains that they are unique in the industry and that a recent audit by the Environmental Protection Agency returned a 'fully compliant' result and a commendation for outstanding environmental performance.
7. The Company operates a very comprehensive Health & Safety Policy, a copy of which was submitted to the Court.
8.Sick Pay Scheme
The Company recognises that a very favourable culture of high attendance prevails within the Company with absenteeism levels in low single digits.
9. It is crucial to the Company's business that they continue to foster positive employee relations. The Company operates a continuous 24 hour operation, and with a very small team it is imperative that absenteeism is managed to an absolute minimum on an individual basis.
10. The Company has used its discretion in all genuine cases of absence, whether through illness or compassionate leave, payment has been made.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court relate to the Union's application under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 (the Acts) following a refusal by the Company to participate in a joint process at the Labour Relations Commission under the Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. No. 145 of 2000). The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the 2001 Act are fulfilled and that the case is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action, which should be taken, having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, and to dispute resolution and disciplinary procedures, in the employment concerned.
The Court has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations. It has also had regard to the entirety of labour relations practices engaged in by the employer, as they were outlined to the Court in the course of the investigation. The Court has also had regard to the labour relations practices engaged in by associated employers, as it is required to do by Section 2(2) of the Act.
Utilising the provisions of the Act, the Union submitted a list of claims to the Labour Court, as follows: -
-Substantial increase in pay for drivers and warehouse operatives
-Reduction in weekly hours to 39
-Health and safety issues
-Introduction of a formal sick pay scheme
The following are the recommendations of the Court: -
Substantial increase in pay:
The Court notes the information provided by the Company in regard to the pay rates of the drivers and warehouse operatives, as well as two recently published survey information on comparable rates of pay complied by IBEC and CSO. The Court has also noted the Union’s claim. However, no industry comparators were put forward by the Union.
Having examined the information available to the Court, it is satisfied that the rates of pay for drivers and warehouse operatives currently being paid by the Company are not out of line with industries of a comparable size. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim for a substantial increase in pay.
Reduction in weekly hours to 39
The Company submitted to the Court that hours of work were reduced to 39 hours per week with effect from October 2001 and stated to the Court that overtime premia apply after 39 hours. The Court is satisfied that dayworkers operate on the basis of a maximum of 39 hours per week. However, having examined the shift patterns the Court is of the view that a 40-hour week applies for those on the three-shift system.
The Court recommends that an adjustment should be made to the shift hours in order to achieve a 39-hour week, in accordance with normal practice in industry.
Health and Safety issues:
The Union stated to the Court that there were serious Health and Safety concerns among the staff, in particular concerns regarding the quality of the PPE (personal protection equipment) and sought application of best industry practice. The Company stated that no complaints concerning Health and Safety issues were submitted from staff. It outlined for the Court details of its Health and Safety procedures and held that they were of the highest standard.
The Court is satisfied that there is no evidence that the Company are in breach of any Health and Safety procedures. Given the particular nature of the business, the Court recommends that health and safety practices should be to the highest standard.
Sick Pay Scheme:
The Court notes that the Company operates an informal discretionary sick pay scheme and that absenteeism levels are very well controlled. The Court recommends that the Company should introduce a formal sick pay scheme with effect from 1st September 2004.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
19th_July, 2004______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.