FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : JETWASH (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Request by the Union for a Determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR17098.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 20th May, 2005.
DETERMINATION:
The matter before the Court is a request by the TEEU for a determination pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 (the Acts). By letter dated 8th April, 2005 to the Court, the Union contended that the issues, the subject of the Labour Court Recommendation No 17098 made under Section 5 of the Act have not been resolved and requested the Court to issue a Determination.
The employer did not oppose this application, stating that it was its view that the Court’s recommendation had been implemented in full.
The Labour Court issued Recommendation No 17098 on 15th March, 2002.
The Union submitted that the Court’s recommendation was not implemented by management in two respects. Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court hereby issues the following determination under Section 6(1) on the outstanding issues: -
(i) The Company did not implement the application of the skilled non-craft rate to two named workers who produced craft papers. Labour Court Recommendation No: 17098 recommended:
- “The Court notes that one worker has produced his craft papers to management. However, the Court notes that the company indicated that it does not have a requirement for craft skilled welders, therefore the application of the Skilled non-craft rates to this category of workers, is in the Court’s view, appropriate.”
Application of the appropriate rate of pay for three named workers was the subject of dispute at the hearing 6th February 2002 and the Court’s subsequent Recommendation. The two named workers who are now referred to by the Union were not covered by that claim. Therefore, the Court is of the view that the claim now before the Court on behalf of these workers is a new claim.
As the two named workers were not the workers referred to in Recommendation No: 17098, the Court makes no determination under section 6 in their regard.
(ii) The Union, on behalf of three workers, sought application of the appropriate rates of pay with effect from their commencement date of employment. The Union contends that incorrect rates were applied to these workers, which were subsequently corrected, but without retrospection being paid.
Labour Court Recommendation No: 17098 recommended:
- “There was no reference to a probationary rate of pay for up to 14 months in the agreement reached. The agreed rates for unskilled workers will apply from commencement date of employment, while the rate for semi-skilled workers will apply after 12 months.”
Following the issue of the Labour Court Recommendation, the parties agreed on rates of pay for unskilled, semi skilled and skilled (non-craft) rates to apply from 24th June 2002 and 1st September 2002.
The Company stated to the Court that all workers are paid the correct rates of pay as agreed at the Advisory Service and increased in line with PPF and SP.
The Court determines that the rates of pay agreed at the Advisory Service in accordance with Recommendation No: 17098 had application from 24th June 2002. Consequently, any worker who commenced employment since that date should be paid the appropriate rate from the commencement date of their employment.
Other Issues
In respect of other issues referred to in LCR17098, this determination may be read in the same terms as the recommendation issued under section 5.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
8th June, 2005______________________
TOD/BRDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.