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 : SERCOM SOLUTIONS (REPRESENTED BY JOHN HORGAN) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
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 a leading provider of procurement and supply chain management services. It acts as a global outsourcing partner to many of the world's leading technology and telecommunications companies and employs approximately 470 workers including full-time and part-time employees.
The issues in dispute which concern a number of workers who are union members are as follows:
Pay and terms and conditions of employment.
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures.
Shift Allowance.
The Union sought a meeting with the Company to discuss these issues. The Company did not respond and the Union referred the issues in dispute 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). Both parties engaged in the process but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th March, 2006 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 8th August, 2006, the earliest date suitable to the parties. Subsequent to the hearing additional information was submitted by the parties which was considered by the Court. A further Court hearing was held on the 9th October, 2006.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's pay rates are below those of comparators. The Union has supplied details to the Court of pay rates of employees in the Company whose average weekly pay is €345.33. This rate is less than that paid by IEC Limerick where workers have an incremental pay scale starting at €8.75 per hour and enjoy all the benefits of National Wage Agreements. In Musgrave's Cash and Carry employees after one year's service receive a weekly wage of €380.00. The Company have made no attempt to address the shortfall in rates of pay during the lifetime of Sustaining Progress. The Union believes that workers have a clear entitlement to address this issue for a further 7.5% (as per LCR 17469).
2. The Company's current Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures do not comply with SI 146 of 2000 in that the employee does not have the right to be represented by a trade union official. While the Company has indicated the inclusion of SI 146 of 2000 in the Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures, this in fact is not put into practice.
3. The Company's shift allowances should be increased in respect of employees working weekend shifts from the current level of 12% to 25% similar to that paid by Analog Devices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pay and conditions of workers are well above acceptable standards and compare favourably with similar unionised employments in the region. The average annual earnings of employees in the Warehouse who worked a full week and year in 2005 was in excess of €31,000 and the average increase over the previous five years was 8.0%, considerably above what would have applied under National Wage Agreements (5.1%). For warehouse operators, the average weekly earnings in the week ending April, 2006 was €591.95. The Company pays rates in excess of those paid by its nearest competitor, Irish Express Cargo (IEC).
2. The Company has amended its Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures which are in full compliance with the Code of Practice S.I. 146 of 2000.
3. The Company's shift allowances are in line with industry generally for similar shift systems. The weekend fixed shift of 7.30 a.m. to 7.30 p.m. is paid a premium of 12%, which is standard for a fixed day shift and the other shift rates are also standard i.e. 20% for a swing shift and 30% for fixed nights. These are also in line with Company customers and competitors.
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 Court is satisfied that the conditions specified at Section 2(1)(a) to 2(1)(d) of the 2001 Act are fulfilled in this case and that the dispute is properly before the Court for investigation and recommendation.
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows: -
Pay:-
The Company submitted that its rates of pay and other conditions of employment, when viewed in their totality, are not out of line with comparable employments. On that basis the Company contends that the Court should not make any recommendation in this case.
It appears to the Court that the core issue of difference between the parties relates to the pay determination system in place within the employment. The information provided by the Company indicates that employees doing the same job can have different rates of pay which are fixed on the basis of personal assessment and performance. The Union contends that there should be a service related scale which guarantees employees a rate for the job. In that regard the Union referred the Court to rates paid by what they regard as analogous employments in the Limerick region. The Company says that the average pay of its staff exceeds that claimed by the Union based on one particular employment, which both sides agree is analogous for the purpose of these claims.
Having regard to the nature of the work in question the Court is of the view that the Company’s pay determination system is out of line with comparable employments in which pay is determined by collective bargaining. The Court is satisfied that the norm in such employments is for pay to be determined by reference to a fixed rate or service-related salary.
The Court recommends that the Company should introduce a service related salary scale, in line with that paid by Irish Express Cargo, which would apply minimum rates as follows: -
- Point 1 €7.84 per hour
Point 2 €8.20 per hour- Point 3 €8.56 per hour
Point 4 €8.92 per hour
Point 5 €9.29 per hour
Point 6 €9.65 per hour
Point 7 €10.02 per hour
Point 8 €10.39 per hour
Point 9 €10.75 per hour.
- Point 3 €8.56 per hour
Where individual employees are currently in receipt of rates in excess of those recommended they should continue to receive those rates on a personal to holder basis.
Future Increases:-
Future increases in pay should be determined having due regard to the level of increase provided for by Social Partnership Agreements.
Shift Pay:-
Having regard to the shift pay arrangements in the comparator employment used for the purpose of the Court’s recommendation on pay, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim for an improvement in the rate payable for weekend shifts.
Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures:-
The Union claimed that the current internal procedures for the processing of issues relating to individual grievances and disciplinary matters are inadequate in that they do not provide for representation of employees by a trade union in appropriate cases.
The employer informed the Court that it has reviewed its internal procedures having regard to the provisions of the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (SI 146 of 2000). The Court recommends that the employer proceed accordingly. Any dispute concerning the compatibility of the revised internal procedures with the provisions of the Code of Practice should be processed through the procedures of Section 43 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.
Implementation:-
Except where otherwise stated the recommendations herein should be implemented within one month from the date on which they are issued.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
24th November, 2006______________________
todChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.