FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLANBIA (INCH) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from LCR19174
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Glanbia in relation to a number of issues. The parties had previously been before the Court and the Court issued its Recommendation on 25th March, 2008 (LCR 19174). The parties have now referred the unresolved issues back to the Court for a definitive Recomendation on (a) Staffing levels, (b) Serac Rate, (c) Redundancy, (d) Overtime loss, (e) Lead in Payment and (f) Compensation for staff not appointed to salaried positions.
These issues were referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th July, 2008. The following is the Court's Recomendation:
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties at the hearing held on 11th July 2008. It has also taken full account of the earlier submissions made at the hearing on 6th March 2008, which resulted in Recommendation LCR19174. The Court recommends that each of the outstanding issues be resolved on the following basis: -
Staffing Levels
The Court recommends that the staffing levels be fixed at 50, in line with the Union’s claim. However this should be further reviewed six months after the new agreement has been fully implemented.
Serac Rate
In Recommendation LCR19174, the Court recommended that the Company should not pursue its original proposal for a reduction in the annualised Serac rate. The proposal which was then before the Court was for a reduction in the weekly working hours of those on annualised salaries and a reduction in the overall salary rate. However, the salary reduction proposed was significantly greater, proportionately, that the reduction in hours envisaged. On that account the Court took the view that what was then proposed was unreasonable and so recommended. Having accepted that recommendations the Company did not pursue its original proposal.
What is now proposed is significantly different. It is proposed that the working week of those concerned be reduced from 42 hours per week to 39 hours per week. In that regard it is noted that the standard working week for all other employees is 39.
Having regard to all the circumstances in which the current issues arise, and taking account of the totality of the restructuring necessary at the plant, the Court recommends that the working hours of those on the Serac rate be reduced to 40 per week. The salary applicable should be reduced on a strictly pro-rata basis.
The Court further recommends that those affected by this proposal be paid a once-off lump sum of €7,000 in compensation for the loss of earnings involved. This level of compensation takes into account the fact that the full salary is currently pensionable. Nevertheless, the Court recommends that following acceptance of this recommendation the parties should meet to consider if further measures could be put in place by which the loss of pension benefits could be ameliorated.
Redundancy
The Court recommends that the redundancy package should be six weeks pay per year of service, inclusive of statutory terms. This should be subject to a cap of €125,000.
Overtime loss
The Company’s offer of compensation for loss of overtime should be accepted.
Lead in Payment
The Court recommends a lead-in payment of €3,750 per employee. This should be paid in three phases as follows: -
- Phase 1- on acceptance of the agreement in line with this Recommendation €1,750
Phase 2- 6 months after acceptance,
€1,000
Phase 3 – 6 months after the second phase,
€1,000
The payment of the amounts provided for in phases 2 and 3 should be conditional on satisfactory cooperation with the implementation of the agreement. Should any dispute arise in this regard the matter should be refered back to the Court for final adjudication.
Non-appointment to salaried posts
The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim for compensation arising from the non-appointment of certain staff to salaried positions.
Productivity
The Court does not recommend concession of the unions claim for a productivity payment.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th Aug 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.