FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : 4 HOMES SUPERSTORES - AND - MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Removal of 4% Bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company trading as 4 Home Superstores is part of Reox Holdings which in turn is a subsidiary of Dairygold. In 1996 an Agreement was reached between the Union and Management, part of this agreement was the replacement of the one weeks pay as an annual bonus by a 4% bonus to be paid at Christmas to Union members. The original reason this bonus was payable is now in dispute but regardless of this debate the Management have declared that it is their intention not to pay the 4% bonus this Christmas. The Union members are seeking the retention of the payment as they contend it is part of their terms and conditions of employment.
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 24th November, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd December, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 4% bonus was paid for ongoing change and cooperation with the Company and is part of the terms and conditions of employment for Union members.
2. If the payment is terminated as outlined in the Company's letter dated 11th February 2008 it would be a clear breach of the 1996 Union / Company Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 4% Bonus relates to a guarantee that no unofficial industrial action would be taken by the Union members after the consolidation of two locations into one at Mitchelstown in 1996.
2. This payment in these competitive times is unwarranted, adds no value, is penal on the Company, is contrary to the terms of T2016 and should be removed.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear to the Court that the bonus at issue is an established condition of employment of those to whom it relates.
In these circumstances the Court can see no reasonable basis upon which it can now be withdrawn. Accordingly the Court recommends that the Company continue to pay the bonus in line with the current Company / Union Agreement.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
10th December, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.