FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HENRY DENNY & SONS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. 1. Grading; 2. Bonus; 3. Back pay on shift allowance.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the grading, bonus and back pay on shift allowance for cleaners in Dennys, Tralee.
- A grading system, which has been in place in the Company since 1982, grades jobs in accordance with the skills required. The Union argues that the cleaning function is a very important one and should be upgraded from the current Grade C to Grade A. However, a 2004 IPC job-grading review pitched cleaners at Grade B.
In 2005, the Company introduced the Cleaning Incentive Scheme, which has resulted in a reduction in the cleaners' bonus. The Union argues that cleaners should be put on the factory average productivity bonus.
In 2001, the Union raised a claim that, unlike other workers in the factory, cleaners working overtime received overtime premium only on basic pay, rather than on basic pay plus shift allowance. The Company accepted the situation and back-dated payment of the deficit to April 2001. The Union, however, wants the payment back-dated to 1997.
This 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 22nd October 2007 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th February 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The cleaners should be on Grade A because the work is very skilled, potentially hazardous and requires the cleaners to work unsupervised on their own initiative.
2. The IPC Report did not fully examine the cleaning function as its author failed to examine the cleaners working at night.
3. There are too many variables in cleaning to be able to calculate accurately a time for each operation, and as the Cleaning Incentive Scheme is based on these flawed timings, cleaners should, instead, be put on the factory average productivity bonus.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The IPC review process, which was comprehensive and transparent, involved Union and Company representatives, and the Union voiced no concerns until after publication of the IPC Report.
2.The Cleaning Incentive Scheme, which takes account of the time, quantity and quality of work carried out by the cleaners, is an accurate measure of same and operates successfully in many similar Companies.
3. The payment of the deficit was back-dated to when the issue was first raised with the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows:
Grading:The Union's members should accept the Company's offer of Grade B and should, if desired, activate the appeals procedure as set out in the original IPC Report.
Bonus:The matter should be discussed and agreed by the Company and Union Industrial Engineers and the parties to the dispute should accept the agreed result.
Retrospection - Shift Pay:The Court does not recommend concession of this claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
18th February, 2007.______________________
JMcC.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.