FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BIA CARE SERVICES LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Basic rate of pay 2. Allowances 3. Unsociable hours payment 4. Introduction of seasonal bonus 5. Annual leave 6. 39 hour week (divisor).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a licensed haulage company established in 1995 as Cadbury Ireland's contractor for it's national distribution service. It employs a total of 28 staff including its General Manager.
The dispute before the Court concerns claims by the Union on behalf of its members who are drivers and warehouse operatives. The Union are seeking on behalf of both groups an increase in basic pay, a 39-hour week (divisor), overtime to be included in holiday pay, increased annual leave and an index linked bonus. The Union are also seeking an increase in subsistence allowance for the drivers and an unsociable hours payment for the warehouse operatives.
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 25th June, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th October, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union has for many years sought to establish pay and conditions by using traditional recognised procedures, i.e. correspondence, requested meetings etc.
2.The pay rates are below the average rates applicable to other unionised transport companies.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company did put forward proposals on self-financing any increases in pay which were rejected by the Union.
2. The Union claims are cost-increasing and precluded by Sustaining Progress
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear from the correspondence passing between the parties during 1996/1997 that some level of agreement was reached in respect of pay and conditions of employment. Due, however, to the degree of informality with which these discussions / negotiations were conducted it is now difficult to establish what was or was not agreed. In the Court's view the Company must accept some responsibility for what has ensued.
It is noted that the parties have been engaged in negotiations on pay and conditions of employment. While the Company contends that they are only prepared to make concessions on a cost neutral basis they have not costed any elements of the Union's claim nor have they costed the saving which could accrue from the concessions offered. In these circumstances it is impossible for the Court to make a helpful recommendation on these matters.
The Court recommends that the parties resume negotiations at the Labour Relations Commission on the Union's claims. The Company should produce accurate information on the Union's claims and on the value of any cost offsetting measures which are proposed.
If the dispute is not finally resolved with in a six week period any outstanding matters may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
13th October, 2004______________________
MG.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.