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 : WEST WOOD CLUB LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Doherty 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 the provision of leisure facilities and creche services. The issues in dispute which concern a number of creche workers who are union members are as follows:
Pay rates
Sick pay
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures
The Company does not recognise the Union for the purpose of collective bargaining. The issues in dispute were referred to the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission under the provisions of the enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004). The Company declined to engage in the process and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 2 of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Court hearing was held on the 15th December, 2005. The Company declined an invitation to attend the hearing.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rate of pay for all hours worked and all grades is €7.65. The creche employees work a 45 hour week inclusive of lunch break and opening hours are seven days per week with no premium paid. The lunch break is paid because the claimants are on-call during break, to comply with staff to child ratio in the creche. The Union is seeking to improve pay rates to reflect service and qualification. The Union is seeking a pay structure as outlined by the Court in Recommendation No. LCR 18265. All workers are finding it difficult to stretch their pay over the month and are seeking to be paid weekly but would settle for fortnightly pay.
2. Sick pay. There is no sick pay scheme in operation in the employment and because of the nature of the work a sick pay scheme is required. The Union is seeking that a sick pay scheme be put in place which is no less favourable than that recommended in LCR 18265.
3. In relation to Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures the Union is seeking that the Company implement S.I.146 of 2000. The workers' contracts of employment make no reference to trade union representation or the Labour Court.
4. While the Company's document entitled "Conditions of Employment" states that full uniform must be worn at all times, the claimants have never been issued with a full uniform.
5. Staff must bring their own mobile phones on field trips in case of an emergency and the Company do not offer to compensate for their use. The Union is seeking a payment of €5 per week to staff for this purpose.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004 (the Acts). In a letter to the Court dated 7th November 2005, the employer held that the statutory pre-conditions for investigation of the Union’s claims had not been met, as the internal grievance procedures had not been availed of by any employee to address the claims.
The Union told the Court that despite a number of attempts made to the employer to have the issues addressed, no response was forthcoming. Furthermore, the employer failed to attend two meetings arranged by the Labour Relations Commission to discuss the issues, under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004). Following the failure of the employer to attend at the Labour Relations Commission, the dispute was referred to the Court under section 2 of the Acts. The employer was given every opportunity to attend the Labour Court hearing to address the Union’s claims but failed to do so.
The Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the Acts were fulfilled in this case and that the dispute was properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
The Court has taken careful account of the Union’s submission in its written and oral presentation. 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.
The claims were submitted by the Union on behalf of sixteen cr�che workers who were members of the Union and are based at the Club in Clontarf. Among the claims submitted under the Enhanced Code of Practice on Voluntary Dispute Resolution (S.I. 76 of 2004) were claims of Victimisation and Trade Union recognition. At the Labour Court hearing, the Union informed the Court that it was not pursuing the former claim under section 2 of the Acts and indicated its acknowledgment that the Court was precluded from dealing with the latter.
Having regard to all relevant circumstances, the Court recommends on each of the Union's claims as follows: -
Rates of Pay
The Court recommends the following rates of pay for Unqualified Childcare Workers and for Qualified Childcare Workers as follows:
| Rates per Hour | Unqualified Childcare Worker | Qualified Childcare Worker |
| On Start | €8.24 | €8.92 |
| Meet Standard Performance | €8.48 | €9.15 |
| Above Standard Performance | €8.77 | €9.45 |
In relation to the rate for Specialist / Montessori personnel, the Court recommends as follows:
| Rate Per Hour | Specialist / Montessori |
| On Start | €10. 00 |
| Meet Standard Performance | €10.30 |
| Above Standard Performance | €10.80 |
The Court recommends that wages should be paid on a fortnightly basis and not on a monthly basis.
The Court recommends that for all hours worked in excess of 39 hours per week, the following overtime premia should apply: -
• Time plus one half after normal finishing time, Monday to Friday.
• Time plus one half for all time worked in the first four hours on Saturday and double time thereafter.
• Double time for all hours worked on Sunday.
Safety, Health and Welfare
The Court recommends that the employer should ensure that proper structures and processes should be put in place to ensure the safety, health and welfare of the workers concerned with this claim.
Introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme
The Court recommends that the employer should introduce a sick pay scheme providing for four weeks sick leave per year at full pay less social welfare. All sick leave should be covered by a medical certificate. The scheme should apply to all employees who have completed their probationary period. The scheme should not operate in respect of the first 3 days of any illness.
Disciplinary and Grievance 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 employer processing procedure should provide for representation by an employee representative in individual grievances and disciplinary matters as provided by paragraph 4.4 of the Code.
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 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Implementation
This recommendation should be implemented within one month of the date on which it is issued
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th January, 2006
tod______________________
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.