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 : MEDENTECH LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier 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. The Company is involved in chemicals and water purification. It employs in the region of 80 to 90 employees and has been in operation for over 21 years.
The Company and the Union have been involved in a series of discussions both locally and with the Advisory Service. Both parties acknowledge substantial progress had been made but a number of issues still need to be resolved i.e:
- Pay Structures;
- Shift Premia;
- Sick Pay.
As these issues could not be resolved the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 28th February, 2006 by the Labour Relations Commission, 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 was held on the 30th March, 2006.
The following is the recommendation of the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, (the Act). The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Act are fulfilled in this case and that the dispute is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
This dispute has been referred following the failure of the parties to reach agreement in relation to the matters at issue at the Labour Relations Commission under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Disputes Resolution ( S.I. No. 76 of 2004).
The Court has taken careful account of the submissions of the parties in their written and oral presentations. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that a recommendation made by the Court shall not provide for arrangements for collective bargaining. Subject only to that restriction the Court is required to give its opinion on the matter under investigation and, where appropriate, its view as to the action, which should be taken, having regard to the terms and conditions of employment, in the employment concerned.
Utilising the provisions of S.I. No. 76 of 2004 the Union, on behalf of its members in the Company, submitted a list of claims to the Labour Relations Commission. Agreement was reached on most of the issues and the remaining issues were referred to the Court :- pay structure, shift premia and sick pay. Following protracted discussions at the Advisory Service, the Company made a final proposal in July 2005 on the issues in dispute, the members of the Union subsequently rejected these.
The Court has taken account of the company’s financial situation at present. Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court recommends as follows: -
(i) Pay Structure
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company’s offer to increase rates of pay as follows: -
Packing Area Production and Stores Area
€7.65 on commencement €8.33 on commencement
€8.00 after 6 months €9.55 after 6 months
€8.55 after 18 months €10.00 after 18 months
Team Leaders
The Court recommends that the Team Leaders rates should be increased to reflect the relative difference between that which currently exists and that which will exist after the above rates have been applied to the various categories.
The Court recommends that these rates should be increased in line with the terms of any new social partnership deal agreed at national level with effect from 1st April 2006.
(ii) Shift Premia
The Company’s July 2005 offer on shift premia is as follows:
“3 Shift System”
- While on Days:
no premium, unless the employee had worked on evening or night shift for a consecutive period of thirteen weeks prior to going on days, in which case the employee will receive the appropriate shift premium (evening or night) for a period of 13 weeks on days.- While on Evenings:
- 26% for those employees currently employed, this premium will be retained by those employees on a personal to holder basis, otherwise a premium of 18% will apply for all new recruits.
- premium of 33.1/3%
- 26% for those employees currently employed, this premium will be retained by those employees on a personal to holder basis, otherwise a premium of 18% will apply for all new recruits.
- While on Evenings:
3 Shift Working on Siebler Machine
The Court notes that at the moment, the shift working system on the Siebler Machine may not be regarded as a classic three shift system, however, the Company indicated that it’s offer to increase the premium from an average of 22% to 25% is designed to put in place a shift premium which will meet the Company’s potential need to operate a normal three shift system. This offer of 25% will apply to all three shifts, in lieu of the current system of Days: no premium, Evenings: 33.3%, and Nights 33.3%.
The Court recommends acceptance of the Company’s offer on shift premium. However, the Court recommends that the 18% shift premium referred to above should be reviewed by the Company in mid-2007 with a view to improving the rate.
(iii) Sick Pay
The Company made an offer to introduce a sick pay scheme as follows:
Service Entitlement
0 – 12 months no entitlement
12 – 24 months 10 days sick leave
24 – 36 months 15 days sick leave
36 months + 20 days sick leave
- No payment for the first three days of absence
- Medical Certification required after three days absence
- Return to work interview
- Regular review of sick pay scheme to assess the scheme in terms of
This proposed sick pay scheme was included in the package offered by the Company in July 2005, which was rejected. At the hearing, the Union indicated to the Court that the terms of the sick pay scheme were acceptable to its members. The Court recommends that the offer should be reinstated and accepted by the Union.
Implementation
The recommendations herein, save where otherwise appears, should be implemented within one month from the date of this recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
5th April 2006______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.