FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MUSGRAVE SUPERVALU CENTRA LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Bonus review for 2002, including wage indexation of Saturday allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company distributes chilled frozen foods to Supervalu chains throughout the Country, it has chill depots in twenty six counties. The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of it's members employed as Distribution Team Members (DTM's) in the chill warehouse in Dublin. A bonus payment scheme was negotiated and agreed at the end of 2001 based on four elements, productivity, absence, accuracy and claims.It also provides for a special premium for Saturday working. The elements, except absence which is based on individual performance, are based on depot performance. The results of the 2002 bonus scheme caused deep dissatisfaction among the workers as the bonus payments made fell short of the potential promised. There are two elements to the Union's claim as follows:
- (A) Bonus Payments:
This scheme yields 6.4% of annual salary in an annualised hour contract. It is yearly based and paid on results in January/February of the following year.
- (B) Saturday Premium:
This is a special premium rate for Saturday working, the amount being the same as agency gross charge rates. This is in addition to the annualised payment structure.
- (A) Bonus Payments:
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th November,2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th February, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 7th November,2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th February, 2004, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. Bonus Payments
- (a) The headcount required for picking teams was not consistently maintained and contributed to poor performance. Agency staff filled the shift teams over numerous weeks which caused difficulties for permanent staff working with untrained agency staff.
(b) Pick planners were drawn from the pick teams against the intention and relevant clauses in the bonus scheme.
(c) Issues of poor equipment were continuously arising. These issues affected the night shift teams also.
- (a) The premium should be linked to wage movement, otherwise it will not provide an incentive for trained staff. The premium was set at €15.87 in 2001 and there is no mechanism to increase the allowance.
- (b) The pre-conditions should be withdrawn and the issues in question addressed in the overall bonus review.
(c) The wage movements since 2001 should be applied retrospectively to the Saturday premium as follows:2nd phase of the Programme for Prosperity and fairness -5½% in2002,3rd phase of the PPF - 4% in 2003,1st phase of Sustaining Progress - 3% in October 2003.
- (b) The pre-conditions should be withdrawn and the issues in question addressed in the overall bonus review.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Bonus Payments
- (a) The working agreement was voted on and accepted by the workers after extensive discussions and negotiations
(b) The Company kept the workers informed of progress against targets on a monthly basis which is in full compliance with the terms of the bonus payment scheme.
(c) The targets were realistic and achievable which was shown in the results for 2003. The Company made the appropriate payments for the targets achieved both in 2002 and 2003.
(d) Payment made based on a number of months results would undermine the basis of the bonus agreement and could have a knock on effect on the Company's other depot in Cork which has a similar working agreement. No payment was made in the Cork depot for elements of the bonus scheme not achieved.
- (a) The working agreement was voted on and accepted by the workers after extensive discussions and negotiations
- (a) The payments for Saturday work was accepted by the workers as per the 2001 agreement. The current maximum agency rate is paid to DTM's for Saturday work and their basic salary, not inclusive of bonus or Saturday payments is substantially ahead of competitors. (b) The Company made the appropriate bonus payments for 2002 and arrangements and payments should remain as stated in the working agreement.
(c) The Company is facing ever increasing competition in the marketplace and remuneration increases outside those in the agreements would erode the Company's competitiveness
- (a) The payments for Saturday work was accepted by the workers as per the 2001 agreement. The current maximum agency rate is paid to DTM's for Saturday work and their basic salary, not inclusive of bonus or Saturday payments is substantially ahead of competitors. (b) The Company made the appropriate bonus payments for 2002 and arrangements and payments should remain as stated in the working agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows in relation to the issues in dispute:
Claim A - Bonus Payments.
In the Court's view, the Union has a reasonable basis for contending that the failure to achieve the production targets for the year 2002 may have been attributable to exceptional causes. However, this matter should be addressed in the context of the impending review of the agreement.
Claim B - Saturday Premium.
The Court is of the view that this premium constitutes pay and as such should be increased in line with other elements of pay. Accordingly, the Court recommends that this claim should be conceded
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
8th March 2004______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.