FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : WATERFORD CREDIT UNION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Referral from the Labour Relations Commission under The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by The Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. Waterford Credit Union has two premises, one in Parnell Street and one in Upper Grange, Waterford. It is among the biggest credit unions in the Country. It employs a total of 40 workers both full time and part-time. In November, 2004 a number of workers joined SIPTU. Engagement with the Advisory Service of the LRC proved unsuccessful and the issues between the parties were referred to the Court under the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by The Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
The Parties' views on the issues in dispute are set out as follows:-
1.Pay scales and payment of overtime
The Union is seeking increases in wages for those in areas of responsibility and/or those in the upper end of pay scale and payment for overtime, also that panel staff be put on pay scales: The Company maintains that over the past 4/5 years it has paid in excess of the National Wage Agreements and that its pay scales are generally in line with, or better than those in other Credit Unions.
2. Pension
The Union is seeking access to the Company's pension scheme for all employees regardless of status. The employer is currently introducing an defined contribution pension plan. The Parties differ on the levels of contribution to this plan.
3. Sick Pay
The Union is claiming that any new sick pay scheme should include a provision from an existing informal scheme, whereby full time employees were paid for 26 weeks while absent, and pro rata for part time workers. The Company proposes the immediate introduction of formalised non contributory sick pay scheme with a maximum of 10 weeks pay while absent. Any previous arrangements were individual and informal.
4. Annual leave increase for part-time workers.
The employer maintains that annual leave should be applied on a pro-rata basis and that its proposals on this are reasonable. The Union disputes this and claims a more generous pro-rata arrangement.
5. Employment policies and job description
The Union maintains that the Company's grievance and disciplinary procedures are outside the provisions of the Code of Practice S.I. No.146. The Company has amended its Grievance and Disciplinary procedure to allow for individual professional representation of staff and feels that the procedure as amended is acceptable under the Act..
6. Saturday premium
The Union is seeking a daily premium of €25 for workers who must work on Saturday. The Company rejects this.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 5th May, 2005 in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations Amendment Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions ) Act, 2004. A Court hearing took place on the 10th June, 2005.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having examined the oral and written submissions of the parties, the Court recommends as follows on the issues raised by the Union under Section 2(1) of the Act:-
Pay Scales:
The Court does not find that the pay scales in this employment are currently out of line with generally established standards in the industry for this grade / category of worker and recommends accordingly.
Pension:
The Court finds the proposals made by the Company at the hearing to be fair and reasonable and in line with generally established standards and recommends that they be accepted.
Sick Pay Scheme:
The Court recommends that the Company's proposals should come into effect from 1st June 2005 and should be accepted by the Union.
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures:
The Court recommends that Grievance Procedures as provided for under S.I. 146 of 2000 should be implemented and notes the Company's agreement to this.
Annual Leave:
The Court finds the Company's proposals in this regard to be compliant with normal and legal standards and recommends that they be accepted.
Job Description:
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company's proposals in this area.
Saturday Premium:
Given the nature of the industry, the Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
28th June, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.