FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CONTROL PLUS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Terms & Conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between Central Parking System Ltd t/a 'Control Plus' and SIPTU regarding pay parity between employees in Dublin and Cork.
The Union are seeking pay parity with Dublin comparators for on street workers and pound assistants phased in over a period of 3 years, and that the rate would be then increased as per the incremental scale with the incorporation of the shift rate into the basic rate. It also seeks improvements in the sick pay scheme and annual leave entitlements.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the contracts operating in Dublin and Cork are separate and distinct commercial contracts with different service providers, and are vastly different in terms of volume, service levels, numbers employed, charges and geographical coverage.
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 20th October, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd March, 2005, the earliest date suitable to the parties
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rates of pay for workers employed on the Dublin contract are significantly higher than those employed in Cork though the duties and responsibilities are the same.
2. The Dublin contract had been previously re-negotiated to take account of the need to increase pay rates. The details of the re-negotiated contract were not supplied to the Union but the rates were found to be significantly increased to take account of wage demands.
3. The Union were prepared, at the time of negotiations to accept interim improved rates until the expiry of the current contract on the understanding that future negotiations would progress towards pay parity. This was rejected by the company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The terms and conditions applying to employees who operate the contract for Dublin City Council relate to an agreed and acknowledged specific set of circumstances which do not apply to the Cork contract.
2. The claim for pay parity between the Dublin and Cork operations is unsustainable and would put the Cork's contract into a loss making situation.
3. The Company were prepared to offer interim proposals to improve terms and conditions prior to the re-negotiation of the contract which will expire in December, 2005. These proposals were rejected by the Union.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Union sought parity of terms and conditions of employment with Traffic Controllers in Dublin who were previously employed with the Company. The Company no longer retain the car clamping business in Dublin as they lost that contract.
The Company made an interim offer to increase the rates of pay in return for work practice changes, but did not accept that there should be parity between the rates of pay in Cork and Dublin. The Company also agreed to enter into further negotiations on increases in pay to become effective from 1st July 2005.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court does not accept that there are grounds for conceding parity of rates between Cork and Dublin.
The Court recommends that the Union should accept the pay proposals put forward by the Company, with an implementation date retrospective to 1st September 2004. The Court also recommends that in tandem with the discussions on the renewal of the contract with Cork City Council, the Union should engage with the Company on further negotiations on the rates of pay in July 2005.
Sick Pay Scheme
The Union sought an improvement in the Company’s sick pay scheme to bring it in line with the Dublin sick pay scheme. The Court does not recommend in favour of the application of the sick pay scheme which applies in Dublin, however, discussions on improving the current sick pay scheme should form part of the July 2005 negotiations.
Annual Leave
The Union sought 23 days annual leave, to bring the entitlement in line with the Dublin annual leave entitlements. The Court recommends an increase of 2 days annual leave, from the leave year 2005, bringing the overall entitlement to 22 days, with the timing of these extra days being at the discretion of the Company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st March, 2005______________________
AH/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.