FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : GERARD LABORATORIES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Request the Union for a Determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR18072.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 5th May, 2005
DETERMINATION:
On 25th January 2005 the Court issued Recommendation No18072 in a dispute between SIPTU and Gerard Laboratories which it had investigated pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001, as amended (the Act). On 28th February 2005 SIPTU applied for a determination pursuant to section 6 of the Act.
The employer submitted that the Court's original recommendation was based on unsound or incomplete information. The Court cannot accept that this submission is correct. For the purposes of the original hearing each of the parties provided the Court with comprehensive information concerning terms and conditions applying in other employments which they considered relevant in advancing their respective positions. The Court took account of all of this information and evaluated its relevance and weight in reaching its opinion on the merits of the case and in formulating its recommendations. The Court has not been furnished with any evidence which could suggest that any of this information was unsound or incomplete. Moreover, the case was fully argued at the original hearing and no new information or materially different submissions were made in the course of the present hearing.
The employer further argued that it was inappropriate for the Court to adjudicate on a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of a Code of Practice under the Act and that any such dispute should be processed under Section 43 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Section 42(4) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 requires the Court to take the provisions of a code of practice into account in any proceedings in which they are relevant. The Court originally recommended that a revised grievance and disciplinary procedure be put in place which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary procedures (SI 146 of 2000). The Court then went on to recommend that the Union should be consulted in relation to a revised internal procedure and that any dispute concerning its compatibility with the Code of Practice contained in SI 146 of 2000 should be processed in accordance with Section 43 of the 1990 Act. The Court notes that no consultation has taken place on the basis recommended.
Section 6 of the Act requires the Court to make a determination in the same terms as the recommendation under Section 5 except where:-
(a) the Court has agreed a variation with the parties, or(b) the Court has decided that the recommendation concerned or a part of the recommendation was grounded on unsound or incomplete information.
Since the Court does not accept that the recommendation was grounded on unsound or incomplete information, and no variation of the recommendation has been agreed with the parties, the Court is obliged to make a determination in the same terms as the recommendation and any changes are textual and for the purpose of clarity.
Determination
Sick Pay:
The Court determines that the company introduce a sick pay scheme which provides for eight weeks paid sick leave in any 12 month period. This should apply to all employees who have completed 12 months service. All absences should be medically certified and no payment should apply for the first three days of absence in any illness. The employer should retain the right to refer any employees claiming under the scheme to a medical practitioner of its choosing for a second opinion.
Pay:
On the information before it the Court is not satisfied that the company’s current pay arrangements are sufficiently transparent or that they are based on reasonably discernible objective criteria. The Court believes that a pay structure based on minimum rates for the jobs involved would be more in line with normal practice for similar work in comparable employments.
Having regard to all the circumstances of the case the Court determines that the following minimum rates should apply:
Packing Operatives / Warehouse / Stores Operatives
- On recruitment: €9.00 per hour. (€351 per week)
After six months service: €9.65 per hour. (€376.35 per week)
After twelve months service: €10.19 per hour. (€397.41 per week)
Production Operatives
On recruitment: €9.40 per hour. (€366.60 per week)
After six months: €10.20 per hour. (€397.80 per week)
After twelve months service: €11.30 per hour. (€440.70 per week.)
The Court further determines that the current differential applicable to packing team leaders be maintained.
These rates should apply from 1st January 2005.
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
The employer should put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which conforms to the general provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. 146 of 2000). Consistent with the Code, the company procedure should provide for representation by an employee representative in processing individual grievances and disciplinary matters. An employee representative is defined by the code of practice as including a work colleague or a trade union. The procedure should contain provision for either form of representation as the employee may decide.
This procedure should be put in place within one month from the date of this determination. Any submission that the Union wishes to make with regard to its content should be taken into consideration. If there is any dispute in relation to the compatibility of the proposed procedures with the Code of Practice, the question may be processed under Section 43 of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.Dispute Resolution
The procedure should also provide for the full utilisation of the normal dispute resolution machinery of the State, including the reference of disputes to the appropriate service of the LRC and the Court, as appropriate.
Other Matters
Where employees are currently in receipt of rates of pay or other conditions of employment which are more favourable than those provided for by this determination, they should retain them on a personal to holder basis.
Implementation
The adjustments provided for in this determination should be implemented with retrospective effect to the date provided for in the original recommendation (25th February 2005). Such implementation should be effected within one month of the date of this determination.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th May, 2005______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.