FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GRANTS ENGINEERING LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Improvements in pay & conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Union in relation to pay rates, holiday pay calculation and the introduction of pension and sick pay schemes for employees of the Company.
The Union is seeking an increase in basic pay, by the amalgamation of the bonus scheme into basic pay and holiday pay to include average bonus payments.
The Company's position is that it is operating in an extremely competitive market and cannot sustain the system of the introduction of pension and sick pay schemes. The claim in relation to the pay increases and the amalgamation of the bonus scheme into its basic pay is cost increasing and precluded under National Wage Agreements.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 3rd July 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th February, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The wage rates are out of line with comparable employments. The introduction of the bonus scheme into the basic rate of pay would be an acceptable solution to current difficulties experienced by the workers.
2. It is unacceptable that the Company claims that the cost of the introduction of pension and sick pay schemes are unsustainable. It is a basic right of employees to have occupational pension and sick pay entitlements
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company entered into an agreement with the Union in 2003 in relation to wage increases in excess of National Wage Agreements. It has since applied the terms of consecutive National Wage Agreements. Rates of pay are not out of line with comparable employments.
2. The Company agreed to implement a pension scheme from 2007 which would be PRSA based but would yield payments well in excess of normal PRSAs. This was rejected by the Union.
3. The Company cannot sustain the additional cost of the introduction of a sick pay scheme. The introduction of such a scheme may result in an increase in absenteeism which would effect production andthe Company's viability.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions made to it, the Court recommends as follows:-
Pay:
The parties should explore, and if possible agree a timescale for, the question of the consolidation into basic pay of the first element of the bonus.
Holiday Pay:
This should be calculated on the basis of basic weekly pay plus average weekly bonus.
Pension Scheme:
The parties should begin discussions immediately on the introduction of an occupational pension scheme in line with current norms.
Sick Pay:
A scheme should be introduced with effect from 1st June 2008 providing for,
- 4 weeks' full and 4 weeks' half pay in any 12 month period.
- no payment for first 3 days of illness
- 12 months qualifying service period to apply.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
15th February, 2008.______________________
AH.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.