FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARTON BROTHERS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. A.BonusB.Fork-liftC.Compensation For Loss Of Earnings
BACKGROUND:
2. Carton Brothers is a poultry processing and chill distribution business and it operates a chicken processing plant in Shercock, Co. Cavan with associated mill and hatchery operations in the local area. The Company, having secured equity from an investor, has begun the re-building and modernised it's processing unit and it is currently nearing completion. A number of issues have been under negotiation between the Union and the Company and the dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union in relation to three issues. The issue of Compensation for loss of earnings was the subject of discussion between the parties and it was agreed the Court would not adjudicate on the matter. The Court requested the Company to clarify it's position in relation to the issue. The two outstanding issues are as follows:
- A. Bonus:The Union contends that as output and productivity has doubled in the unit in spite of worsening conditions, a corresponding increase in Bonus is being sought. Consolidation of the Bonus payment onto basic pay so that it will be calculated as part of overtime allowances and sick pay is also being sought. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that it cannot afford any increase on the current bonus payments and that the Union's claim is cost increasing.
B.Fork-lift:The Union is seeking an increase in pay to reflect the increased responsibilities on it's members employed as Fork-lift drivers and that this increase be 20% premium over the General Operative rates of pay. The Company rejects the claim on the basis that automation of the plant has resulted in less work for the drivers and the claim is also cost increasing.- 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 9th February, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2005.
- 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 9th February, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd November, 2005.
3. 1. The Court is requested to uphold the Union's claim to have a corresponding increase in the Bonus Scheme to match increases in the output and productivity. In the absence of a favourable recommendation regarding a corresponding increase in the Bonus, the Court is requested to consider recommending that the Bonus Scheme enjoyed by it's members colleagues in Carrickmacross be applicable to it's members in Shercock.
2. The Union's members are required to operate Fork-lifts in an extremely busy area (the palleting area). This area has a substantial amount of workers and in addition there is additional foot traffic passing through the area. The increased stress and strain of operating under these conditions requires better rewards financially for the drivers. The members also operate the Fork-lifts in chilled areas, cold stores and outside in cold and wet weather.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is in a very serious position financially and is currently being assessed by an Assessor appointed by the Labour Relations Commission to review its inability to pay part two of the Sustaining Progress Agreement. The Company was granted relief under clause 1.10 of part one of the SP Agreement.
2. In the interests of employee relations and in order to ensure a smooth transition to the new plant the Company paid part one of the SP Agreement. All the claims by the Union are cost increasing. The Company operates in a very competitive marketplace and any increase in its cost base cannot be countenanced. The terms and conditions paid at the Company compare very favourably with other employments in the area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Three issues were referred to the Court, these were as follows:-
- Increase in the bonus scheme payment
- Increase in the fork-lift truck drivers rate of pay
- The proposed buyout of allowance
Discussions at the Court concerning the third issue indicated that there were differences of opinion on the status of the Company's position and the Union's understanding on this matter, therefore the Court was not satisfied that the issue was properly before it. The Court requested the Company to write to the Union clearly stating its position on this matter. In the event of any further dispute on this issue it may be referred back to the Court in the normal way.
Increase in the bonus scheme payment:
The Union sought an increase in the bonus payment and consolidation of the bonus into basic pay. It stated that the Company's two other plants pay a substantially higher bonus payment and the introduction of new plant and machinery had resulted in significant changes for the workers. The Company rejected the claim disputing the suggestion that there were significant changes in work practices and held the view that the automation of the plant made the work easier.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the bonus payment should be increased by 4% and should be consolidated into basic pay with effect from 1st December, 2005.
Increase in the forklift truck driver's rate of pay:
Having reviewed the current differential paid to forklift truck drivers, the Court recommends that this differential should be increased to €30.00 per week.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
9th December 2005______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.