FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : JOHNSON BROTHERS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Increase in pay and benefits.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for an increase in pay and benefits for 90 Warehouse Operatives. The Union contends that the genesis of the claim originated in 1999 when the Company secured significant distribution contracts for a major multi-national company- Proctor and Gamble. From 1999 to 2002 the Union was mandated by members to pursue discussions on gain sharing and claims that the workers had an expectation that there would be progress on the matter. In March, 2004, the Company proposed the introduction of new technology in the form of an on-line headset and in November, 2004, the Union made its claim as follows:-
Application of Shift Premium 18% to the quarterly premium - approximately value €8 to €10 per week
Double the terms of 2nd Phase of Sustaining Progress i.e. 5.5%
Additional Christmas Bonus, no pre conditions
Improvement in the Service Leave Scale from 1 day after 20 years to 1 day per 3-6, 9-12, 15-18 years.
The Company's response was that there was no justification for any pay increases and that the historical claim had been dealt with. The Company has also stated that it did not need the workers to use the headsets at present.
The case 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 9th of February, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th of May, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company was in a position to respond to the workers' claim for a gain-sharing scheme for a number of years but did not do so.
2. Although the Company now says that it will not introduce the new technology in the immediate future, the Union believes that it will do so eventually. The technology could not be viewed as "normal ongoing change" as per Sustaining Progress (SP). It will make the Company highly competitive.
3. Other categories of workers have received pay increases (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All the claims are cost increasing and are precluded under Section 1.5 of S.P. The Company has honoured all previous National Agreements.
2. The Company's business has declined by 35% in volume in the last two years and further reductions are expected. It cannot afford to concede the Union's claim.
3. The Company believes that it was the Union that raised expectations among its members in regard to the issue of gain sharing.
4. Terms and Conditions of employment compare very favourably with the Company's competitors.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the claims in dispute have a long history and have been raised with the Company on a number of occasions. Most recently they were raised in the context of a proposal by the Company to introduce new technology to be used in order picking. However, the Company has decided not to proceed with this initiative at this time. It is noted that the Company contends that the changes which were in contemplation constitute normal on-going change. This is disputed by the Union.
In the circumstances, the Court recommends that if the Company revives its proposals for the introduction of this technology the parties should enter into discussion on the matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd June, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.