FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : SWORDS PACKAGING AND LOGISTICS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Request by a Trade Union or Excepted Body for a Determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR 18807
BACKGROUND:
2. The Court issued determination No. LCR18807 on the 9th of January, 2007. On the 5th February, 2007, the Union wrote to the Court seeking implementation of the determination in accordance with Section 6(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001. The following is the Court's determination:
DETERMINATION:
Subsequent to the Determination Hearing, the Court has considered the extensive correspondence, both between the parties and from the parties to the Court.
At the time of the original hearing under Section 2(1) of the 2001, Act, the parties simply came to the Court and argued the merits of the claims made at that time by the Trade Union. No question was raised regarding the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case. Both sides filled in the statutory forms agreeing that the statutory preconditions precedent to an investigation of a trade dispute by the Court under the Act had been fulfilled. It was beyond question from these and at that time that a trade dispute existed. The matter was simply argued before the Court as a trade dispute between an Employer and a Trade Union representing workers employed by that Employer.
The Court agrees with the contention of the Employer that the existence of a trade dispute cannot be irrelevant. It is clear from the above that a trade dispute existed when the Court made its Recommendation and it is equally clear that, as there has not been agreement between the parties since then, therefore, a trade dispute still exists.
While the list provided by the Union is unsatisfactory in that it is apparantely not definitively accurate or complete, it is common cause that the Union represents at least 34 employees (and possibly more).
It has been argued by the Employer that this represents “ a minority group (who) cannot override the interests of the majority who have accepted (the Employer’s) offer and continue to engage in the Employee Representative Council”.
The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004, makes no reference to any requirement regarding what proportion or threshold of a workforce must be represented by a Trade Union in order to be covered by the scope of the legislation.
The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004, even as clarified, makes no reference to any requirements regarding what proportion of a workforce must be represented by a Trade Union in order to be covered by the scope of the legislation.
At the time of the first hearing and subsequent issue of LCR 18807, it was an admitted fact that there were in existence no internal dispute resolution procedures, “ normally used by the parties concerned”, which had failed to resolve the dispute, as required in Section 2(1)(a) of the 2001, Act.
The Employee Representative Committee has been set up since the issue of LCR 18807, as agreed by the Company in its submission to the Determination Hearing, and was not, as required, in place when the Court issued its Recommendation.
The Court, therefore, being satisfied that: -
(a) there is a trade dispute between the parties;(b) there were no internal procedures “ normally used” to resolve this dispute;
(c) the Trade Union has multiple members who are employed by the Company;(d) the matter was properly before the Court at the time of the original hearing and was substantively argued out by the parties at that hearing; and
(e) the Court has neither agreed a variation of Recommendation No. 18807 with the parties nor decided that that Recommendation or any part thereof was grounded on unsound or incomplete information.
is, therefore, satisfied that a Determination should issue in the same terms as LCR18807.
The Court accordingly determines as follows: -
Rates of pay:- With effect from 1st January, 2007, the rates of pay should be increased as follows: -
Starting Rate:
€8.85 per hour.
After 12 months' service €9.65 per hour
- Over 5 years' service €10.00 per hour (including service with the previous employer(s) as applicable under the Transfer of Undertakings Regulations, 2003)
All these rates should attract the first phase of "Towards 2016" with effect from the same date.
The Court notes the Company's commitment to apply the terms of National Agreements from January, 2007, onwards and its subsequent confirmation that it has done so.
Shift Rate:Night Shift:
While the Company has said that it does not a expect night shift to occur in the immediate future, where this does arise, the premium should be 25%.
The Court notes the commitment made by the employer's representative at the original hearing that IBEC will advise the Company on the accepted premium rates for a two - shift system. Should this become an issue and not be agreed, the parties should return to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Overtime:Should be paid at the rate of time plus one half for all weekday hours above 39 per week. The first four hours worked on Saturdays should also be paid at time plus one half. All other hours worked on Saturday and all hours worked on Sundays should be paid at double time
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
16th January,2008______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.