FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Christmas bonus, service pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim concerns two clerical workers. There are nine clerical workers in the Company but only three are represented by the Union. The claim is that the workers be granted 5 days' floating leave in lieu of the annual Christmas bonus. The Company claims that three of the nine workers (including one Union member) have an agreement going back many years which allowed them the option of taking 5 floating days instead of the Christmas bonus. The Union is also seeking the introduction of service pay for the workers. The claim was first made in March, 2002. The Company rejected the claim, stating that the pool of clerical employees was too small. It also argued that there was no basis for the introduction of service pay.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of December, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th of April, 2004, in Limerick, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers involved already cover for each other and would have no difficulty in continuing the arrangement to cover the extra floating days.
2. There is no cost to the Company in regard to the annual leave/bonus issue as the workers are already being paid one week's wages.
3. The Union has committed to implementing a system which will allow for notice periods so as to avoid any potential operational difficulties. The Union views this as a family-friendly initiative.
4. The claim for service recognition is on the basis of equality for all members. The cost to the Company is minimal and rewards long service.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The agreement with the 3 workers who have the option of taking the 5 days' floating leave was "red-circled" with them in the early 1980s. It was clearly outlined that all future incoming clerical staff would receive twenty days' annual leave and payment of a Christmas bonus equivalent to one week's pay.
2. The Company believes that extending the agreement would cause operational problems. It has already caused problems in terms of providing cover for absent employees when the arrangement only applied to three workers.
3. The claim, if conceded, will generate knock-on claims of a similar nature.
4. There are no service pay arrangements for clerical employees in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court finds as follows on the two issues in dispute:-
1.Christmas Bonus:
The Court is satisfied that the agreement in relation to floating days in lieu of the Christmas bonus was a concession given when a change was made in the taxation of the bonus payment. It was clearly done on a red circle basis.
The Court cannot accept the Union argument that"it is not acceptable for some of our members to be denied a benefit that is paid to others."in the circumstances. The Court, therefore, rejects the claim.
2.Service Pay:
The Court recommends that the Company enter into discussions with the Union to review the issue of service pay arrangement. If the parties fail to reach agreement on this matter, the Court will, on request, make a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
14th May, 2004______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.