FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY FOODS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Hearing Arising From LCR No.18728
BACKGROUND:
2. The original claim made by the Union that was dealt with in Labour Court Recommendation No. 18728 concerned an increase in the daily meal allowance. The Court recommended that the claim be dealt with as part of discussions that were underway at national level. A time frame of eight weeks from the date of that Recommendation was put for the completion of the process. Further negotiations followed in early 2007. The Company committed to a total increase of 34% for the daily lunch allowance. The Union's members rejected this in a secret ballot as they believed the allowance has fallen out of line with comparators having not being increased in 14 years. In July 2007 the parties met again but discussions at national level were unsuccessful.
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 23rd July, 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th December, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The daily meal allowance paid to the workers has not increased in 14 years or more. The proposed increase would not bring the allowance in line with comparable industries.
2 In comparison to the Company, its competitors pay their workers at least double for meal allowances. In the similar case of Labour Court Recommendation No. 18024 a significant increase was recommended by the Court.
3 The Company is operating in a highly profitable sector. The Union requests that the meal allowance be increased to €15 per day from January 2007 in keeping with competitor rates and increased with National Agreements or their equivalent in future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The total remuneration package offered to the workers concerned is competitive when compared to similar companies. The meal allowance cannot be taken in isolation when comparing to other companies as this Company offers a high base and commission rate of pay, while other companies offer lower rates of pay and use the allowance as a means of topping up an employees salary tax efficiently.
2 Average earnings in the Company for the Workers concerned have increased year on year by levels in excess of National Wages Agreements. The last set of proposals made by Management to the Union allow for a 34% increase phased in. This is a substantial cost increase for the Company.
3 The Company put three sets of proposals forward during discussions, each at a high cost to the business. The Company are disappointed at the Union's participation and response to date.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court arises from Labour Court Recommendation No: 18728, and concerns a claim for an increase in meal allowances on behalf of nine drivers employed in the Company’s Waterford depot.
Labour Court Recommendation No: 18728, recommended that
- “the Union’s claim for drivers based at the Waterford depot should be dealt with as part of the discussions currently underway at national level, and would urge the parties to complete the process within eight weeks of the date of this Recommendation”.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends an increase in the lunch allowance to €12.00 per day with effect from 1st January 2008, and with a review in two years.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
17th December, 2007______________________
DNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.