FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AIBP (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Indexation of hygiene bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the meat industry and has a number of plants throughout the Country. The dispute relates to the Rathkeale plant. In, 2001, a hygiene bonus was introduced by the Company and was valued at £10.00 punt (€12.70) and it remains at this value to date. The bonus applies to positions in the slaughter hall rather than to any particular person. The Union is seeking that the bonus be index linked to the National Agreements. The Company has rejected the claim maintaining that it was never intended to be an increasing amount.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 13th of September, 2005, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th of January, in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company itself introduced the bonus to acknowledge the difficult and strenuous work at the end of the slaughter line.
2. The bonus has not increased since it was introduced in 2001 and, thus, its value has been eroded. It is not a cost-increasing claim as the Union is simply trying to maintain the value of the earnings throughout the period of the National Agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The bonus did not form part of the basic wage nor was it ever subject to any increase in line with the National Agreements.
2. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under Clause 1.5 of Sustaining Progress.
3. The bonus was an additional incentive to employees to become more concerned regarding a high standard of hygiene. They are already extremely well paid to carry out the work involved.
RECOMMENDATION:
As the Court understands it the allowances / bonus of the type at issue in this case are normally adjusted in accordance with an agreement made at the time of their introduction or in accordance with custom and practice. In this case there is neither an agreement or a custom and practice governing the periodic adjustment of the payment.
In the Court's view, the amount of the allowance / bonus cannot remain fixed for all time and will have to be adjusted from time to time so as to retain its value. The Court recommends that the parties should now have further negotiations with a view to reaching agreement on the adjustment of the allowance, having regard to such considerations as the increase in basic pay since its introduction, movements in the cost of living and the original purpose of the allowance / bonus. The parties should also seek to reach agreement on future arrangements for the periodic adjustment of the amount of the allowance.
These negotiations should commence as soon as practicable following acceptance of this recommendation and should be concluded within three months. Should final agreement not be reached the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
3rd February, 2006______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.