FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THERMO KING (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Service Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs 530 workers and manufactures temperature control products for truck bodies, trailers and sea going containers. It is owned by the US based Ingersoll-Rand Group.The Union claims that an annual service payment should be included in the new Company /Union agreement. The Union also seeks an improvement in sick pay entitlements. Following extended negotiations concerning a new Company / Union agreement, an Independent Facilitator was engaged to assist the parties finalise the agreement.The Facilitator made a number of recommendations. In relation to service pay her recommendation is outlined as follows:
5 to ten years €200 voucher
10 to 15 years €300 voucher
15 to 20 years €500 voucher plus 1 days leave
20 plus years €500 voucher plus 2 days leave
The recommendation led to different interpretations being taken by both Management and Union. Local discussions failed to resolve the issue.The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held in Galway on the 7th July, 2004. At the hearing the Union withdrew its claim for an improvement in sick pay entitlements.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking that the interpretation and clarification of same as provided by the Independent Facilitator concerning the payment of service pay be included in the new Company/ Union agreement. This allows for service pay to be paid annually and also includes extra leave for long serving employees.
2. The workers have given significant cooperation to the Company. They have accepted change and afforded flexibility in relation to the Company's reorganisation of the plant. Management should consider the value of a new modern and updated agreement, with some modest improvements in terms and conditions.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company understood that the service pay was to be a once-off payment when the new agreement was finalised. Service pay was discontinued in the 1980's when it was absorbed by an agreement between the Company and Union into weekly pay.
2. The Union's claim is one for improvement in pay and conditions of employment. It is significantly cost increasing and is precluded under the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
3. The Company must adhere to corporate guidelines on compensation and benefits. Currently the US corporate sanctions all benefits and rewards to employees to ensure consistency across the Company. The corporate benefits policy are not designed to reward, based on longevity of service. The Union's claim would not be sanctioned by the US corporate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that in the course of the hearing the Union withdrew its claim for improvements in the sick-pay scheme.
The Court has taken account of all relevant considerations in relation to the claim for service pay in the terms recommended by the Independent Facilitator. In the Court's view this recommendation should be implemented on the basis that employees receive either service pay in the form of vouchers or Christmas bonus in the form of vouchers, which ever is the higher as it applies to individuals, but not both.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd July, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.