FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHIRES IRELAND LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Pay Rates , Attendance Bonus, Service Pay and Sick Pay Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. Shires Ireland Ltd was acquired by Qualceram in 2000, and now trades as part of Qualceram Shires Plc. The Company, based in Tallaght, Dublin 24, sells and distributes an extensive range of sanitaryware and bathroom fittings. The case before the Court concerns a number of issues in dispute between the Union, on behalf of its members, and the Company, as follows:
- Review of Pay Rates
The Union is seeking an increase in basic pay on the basis that the basic rate of €448 per week and earning potential of its members is below the average and therefore should be increased.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that it is cost increasing and precluded under the terms of Sustaining Progress. The Company contends that it has always honoured its obligations under National Wage Agreements despite the fact that the Company is trading at a loss.
Improvements to Attendance Bonus
The workers receive a monthly bonus of 5% of basic salary, however, the bonus is only payable on full attendance and if an individual employee is absent from work for one day out of the month, their bonus is affected. The Union is seeking payment of bonus on a weekly basis.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the bonus scheme was agreed with the Union in 2000 and individuals benefit greatly from the scheme. Concession of the claim would add further costs to the Company, which is endeavouring to do whatever is possible to survive in a tight margin and competitive market.
Establishment of Service Pay
The Union is seeking the establishment of a Service Pay Scheme which would give recognition for the long term service and dedication to the Company as follows:
5 years or more - €10 per week
10 years of more - €15 per week
15 years or more - €20 per week
20 years or more - €25 per week
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that the introduction of an incremental pay structure or the introduction of service pay is cost increasing and prohibited by Sustaining Progress.
Enhanced Sick Pay Scheme
The current sick pay scheme in operation gives four weeks sick leave with full pay and four weeks sick leave with half pay. The Union contends that this is not in line with present day sick pay schemes in other Companies and it is seeking to have the scheme increased to thirteen weeks sick leave with full pay and thirteen weeks sick leave with half pay.
The Company rejects the claim and contends that the scheme had previously been abused and withdrawn by the Company but was re-introduced following representations by the Union. It further contends that the scheme is fair and reasonable and any adjustments made to the current scheme would have financial implications for a Company that is already loss making.- Review of Pay Rates
- 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. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th January, 2006, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st March, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers affected have given long and loyal service to the Company and continue to do so on a daily basis, however, this loyalty has not been recognised by management and as a result their terms and conditions have fallen behind. The workers are seeking to bring their terms and conditions of employment up to standard with other employments.
2. The Company is performing reasonably well on the market, therefore, the Company cannot plead inability to pay and must now be seen to ensure that they establish terms of employment that will attract young people and put an end to a high turnover of staff. They must also reward those who have stayed with the Company long term and continue to contribute to the development and efficiency of the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company and the Group are loss making and have been for a number of years. Since 2000, the Group's employment numbers have fallen from eleven hundred to six hundred due to various redundancy and necessary rationalisation programmes. The Company's Irish operation has not been directly affected and it is hoped that it will not be either, however, any increase in the Company's cost base could have serious implications for its future viability.
2. The Union's claims are cost- increasing and precluded under Section 1.5 of the Sustaining Progress Agreement and should be rejected in full. The Company has honoured all National Wage Agreements in full. In 2000, the Company negotiated significant pay increases
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court is of the view that the Union's claims on pay, sick pay and service pay are precluded under the terms of Section 1.5 of "Sustaining Progress". The Court, accordingly, does not recommend concession of these claims.
The Court also recommends that the calculation reference period for payment of the attendance bonus be altered from a monthly to a weekly basis.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
8th May, 2006______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.