FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : STERILE TECHNOLOGIES IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Request by the Union for a Determination relation to Labour Court Recommendation No.17906.
BACKGROUND:
2. A Labour Court hearing was held on the 15th September, 2005.
DETERMINATION:
Determination:
The matter before the Court is a request by the SIPTU 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 August, 2005 to the Court, the Union contend that the issues, the subject of the Labour Court Recommendation No 17906 made under Section 5 of the Act have not been resolved and requested the Court to issue a Determination. The Labour Court issued Recommendation No 17906 on 19th July, 2004.
The representative for the employer raised a preliminary issue stated that the Court could not issue a Determination due to the failure on the Union’s part to meet the timeframe required to process its claim to the Court for a Determination in accordance with Section 6 of the Acts. The Court has carefully considered this submission and is of the opinion that the timeframes set out in S.I. 76 0f 2004 and also in the Court’s guidelines are indicative timeframes only and are not mandatory. The employer has not suffered any prejudice due to the delay.
Consequently, the Court has jurisdiction to hear the Union’s case and issue a Determination pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Acts.
In response to the substantive claims before the Court, the employer contended that the Court’s recommendation was based on incomplete information in respect of the second issue under investigation “Reduction in weekly hours to 39”, and held that its Health and Safety procedures were in accordance with best practice as recommended by the Court and it accepted that the recommendation on Sick Pay Scheme had not been implemented.
The Court is satisfied that the dispute has not been resolved and that it is expedient for it to make a determination. Save where the Recommendation was based on unsound or incomplete information, the determination must be in the same terms as the recommendation.
Having considered the submissions of both parties, the Court hereby issues the following determination under Section 6(1) on the outstanding issues: -
The Union contended that recommendation was not implemented by management in three respects;
39 Hour Week:
- (i) The Company had not implemented the application of a 39-hour week for shift workers. Labour Court Recommendation No: 17906 recommended:
- “The Court recommends that an adjustment should be made to the shift hours in order to achieve a 39-hour week, in accordance with normal practice in industry.”
- “The Court recommends that an adjustment should be made to the shift hours in order to achieve a 39-hour week, in accordance with normal practice in industry.”
Determination
The Court is not satisfied that the Company’s understanding that the exclusion of meal breaks for shift workers provides them with less than 40 hours and is therefore in compliance with the recommended “39 hour week in accordance with normal practice in industry”. Consequently, the Court determines that the Company should implement a reduction of one hour in the working week for shift workers as recommended by Labour Court Recommendation No: 17906.
Health and Safety:
(ii) The Company had not implemented best practice in the health and safety matters referred to the Court. Labour Court Recommendation No: 17906 recommended:
- “The Court is satisfied that there is no evidence that the Company are in breach of any Health and Safety procedures. Given the particular nature of the business, the Court recommends that health and safety practices should be to the highest standard.”
Determination
The Court is satisfied that these matters have been addressed satisfactorily and makes no Determination in this regard.
Sick Pay Scheme:
(iii) The Company has not implemented a formalised Sick Pay Scheme as recommended by the Court.Labour Court Recommendation No: 17906 recommended:
- “The Court notes that the Company operates an informal discretionary sick pay scheme and that absenteeism levels are very well controlled. The Court recommends that the Company should introduce a formal sick pay scheme with effect from 1st September 2004.”
The Company accepted that it had not implemented this aspect of the recommendation as it was of the view that the current scheme was generous and worked well.
Determination
The Court determines that a formal sick pay scheme should be introduced retrospective to 1st September 2004.
Implementation
Save where it is otherwise provided, the terms of this Determination should be implemented within one month from the date on which it is issued.
The Court so determines.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
27th September, 2005______________________
todDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.