FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLANBIA - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Increase in bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company runs a soup manufacturing plant in Kilkenny. The plant runs all year round and the Company employs additional 'seasonal' workers in winter time when demand for soup increases.
The Union's claim before the Court is for:
- Seasonal worker/Fixed Term Worker - The Union are seeking bonus parity with their full time colleagues;
- Permanent/full-time employees appointed after December, 2001 Agreement - The Union are seeking bonus parity upon appointment;
- The Union are also seeking backdating on the above bonus increase from January 2002.
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.At Conciliation the Company made an offer of €70 to all claimants both seasonal and permanent and index linked the payment to future wage increases, which was rejected. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th May, 2005 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th January, 2006. Further discussions took place following the Labour Court Hearing on the 27th January, 2006 where some progress was made. Both parties have requested in writing that the Labour Court issue a recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The pay gap between full-time and seasonal/fixed-term worker bonus pay rates had led to poor morale, a two tier system and recruitment and training difficulties.
2. There are no objective grounds for not paying the same bonus to permanent employees and their Seasonal/Fixed Term work comparators
3. Seasonal/Fixed Term workers conditions of employment, including remuneration, should be that of their comparable permanent employee.
4. The season is approximately 12-16 weeks duration, therefore not a yearly financial outgoing for the Company.
5. The Company does apply pay parity in relation to shift premium immediately, and pay parity on a phased basis in relation to hourly pay rates.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company operates in an extremely competitive environment. Increased energy costs and doubling of waste disposal charges in the last 18 months has brought additional pressures for competitiveness.
2. The Company is consistently under pressure from the large Irish Retail outlets to reduce the price of our products as well as having to compete with own brand soup and sauce products.
3. There is no justification to the Union's claim which would give seasonal employees increased payments of approximately 90% and 175% for two permanent employees.
4. The claimants were full aware of their terms and conditions as their contracts show.
5. The Company along with the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission made a genuine effort to resolve this matter.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that in its submission to the Court the Union relied on the provisions of the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 in support of its claim. The dispute was, however, referred to the Court under the Industrial Relations Act 1946 to 2004. It appeared to the Court that the issues in dispute (parity in bonus payments between seasonal workers and permanent full-time workers) comes within the scope of both the Protection of Employees (Fixed-Term Work) Act 2003 and the Protection of Employees (Part-Time Work) Act 2001. The Court adjourned the hearing so as to allow the parties the opportunity of considering if they wished to have the matter dealt with by a Rights Commissioner under either statute.
The Union subsequently contacted the Court and requested it to issue a recommendation under the Industrial Relations Act 1946 to 2004. Accordingly the Court has considered the issues arising from an industrial relations perspective only in formulating the recommendation which follows.
It is noted that following the previous hearing the parties returned to conciliation and further offers were made to resolve the dispute. The Court is not satisfied that a stage has been reached where no further efforts on the part of the LRC would advance the resolution of this dispute. The Court is of the view that if the parties should now seek a resolution based on a differentiating between those who were in the employment at the time and changed shifts arrangements were introduced and those who commenced employment since that time.
The Court recommends that the parties should resume their negotiations at conciliation on that basis in one final effort to reach agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th April, 2006______________________
JB/MGChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.