FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : 4 HOME SUPERSTORE, BREEO FOODS, REOX HOLDINGS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 4% Bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Companies known as 4 Home Superstores, Breeo Foods and Reox Holdings emanated from the re-organisation of the Dairygold group which itself had evolved from the amalgamation of a number of smaller co-ops. The issue in dispute is a 4% annual bonus paid during the first week of December each year. The origins of this payment are varied but include payment for industrial peace, productivity, relocation etc. The dispute follows the Company's announcement that it would cease paying the bonus following restructuring in 2006, but this move was delayed after the Union threatened industrial action.
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 6th November, 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th December, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The attempt to remove the 4% bonus would represent a cut in wages, the Union is not prepared to accept such a cut. For many of the Workers it could represent the difference between a good Christmas or a bad Christmas.
2. The bonus is governed by the transfer of undertakings legislation and any change must have agreement from the Union.
3. The Workers who have not received their bonus should be paid in full all monies due.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The continuance of the payment of a bonus to be paid on condition that those in receipt of it refrain from engaging in unofficial industrial action is unwarranted as industrial peace is already being paid for under social partnership agreements.
2. Competition is cut-throat in the DIY business, the bonus is not financially viable as the bonus is paid on top of basic salary, overtime, Sunday premium, shift allowance, and commission, as the Company needs to reduce costs and improve efficiency. However the Company is willing to compensate Union members for the loss of the bonus payment.
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 and that it be restored to those from whom it was withdrawn.
This recommendation is not intended to prevent the parties from having discussions aimed at simplifying the administration of the bonus or otherwise addressing the basis upon which it is paid.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
11th December, 2008______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.