FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CURRAN ALUMINIUM & PVC LTD REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Terms & Conditions of Employment and Company / Union Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and Curran Aluminium Ltd (represented by IBEC) in relation to terms and condition of employment and the negotiation of a Company/ Union agreement. The Union is seeking enhanced terms and conditions of employment and the negotiation of a Company/Union Agreement.
Its main issues are, rates of pay (Craft and General), the introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme, Working Hours, Breaks, Overtime Entitlements, Travel Time and Union Recognition for negotiation on behalf of staff members.
The Company rejects the claim on the basis that it is exercising its right not to recognise the Trade Union for Collective Bargaining purposes. It further stated that it is willing to deal directly with employees on all industrial relations matters and issues in dispute between the workforce and management.
As the dispute was not resolved, the Union referred the matter to the Labour Court on 7th May, 2008 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd September, 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union is seeking to establish a constructive relationship with the Company to negotiate acceptable terms and conditions of employment through the completion of a Company/Union Agreement. It has sought to use the appropriate industrial relations machinery but the Company has refused to engage in any meaningful discussion.
2 The claims presented by the Union concerning rates of pay, introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme, Working Hours, Breaks, Overtime Entitlements, Travel Time and Union Recognition are fair and reflective of industry norms.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is not compelled to recognise the Trade Union for collective bargaining purposes. It is willing to deal directly with issues raised by staff and to follow the appropriate industrial relations mechanism for such issues.
2 The Company is currently compiling a staff handbook which will address workplace issues. It is also in the process of forming an Employee Works Council to create a positive work environment going forward.
RECOMMENDATION:
On 28th April 2008 the Union requested a Court investigation, pursuant to Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 in a dispute between it and the Company. The subject-matter of the dispute, as specified in the Union referral, is: -
(1) Terms and conditions of employment, and
(2) Company / Union agreement
Having regard to all the circumstances of this particular case the Court considers it appropriate to make recommendations on the totality of the issues referred to it for investigation. In coming to that view the Court is influenced by the nature of the Union’s claims and that their merit is capable of being assessed by reference to well established norms in employment generally.
Pay
In the absence of any other formal or agreed system of pay determination, the terms of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016 should apply. The Court recommends that the terms of that agreement should be applied with effect from 1st July 2006. However, any annual or similar type increases paid either individually or collectively in that period should be taken into account in calculating any amount now due.
Fitters working on construction sites
The Union has claimed that fitters working on construction sites should be paid the appropriate rate under the Registered Employment Agreement for the Construction Industry.
In the context of this referral the Court cannot determine whether or not the Company is within the scope of that Agreement. That is a question which could only be addressed in an application to the Court under the appropriate provision of the Industrial Relations Act 1946.
If the matter is to be dealt with on an ordinary industrial relations basis the Court could only do so if it is provided with details of the rates normally applied for similar work in analogous employment. In the absence of such information the Court cannot make a definitive recommendation on this aspect of the claim.
Introduction of a Sick Pay Scheme.
The Court recommends that the Company introduce a sick pay scheme providing for four weeks sick leave per year at full pay less social welfare. All sick leave should be covered by a medical certificate. The scheme should apply to all employees who have completed their probationary period. The scheme should not operate in respect of the first three days of any illness.
Working hours
It is noted that the Company claims that the standard working week is 39 hours. The Union disputes that this is the case. For the sake of clarity the Company should now confirm that the standard contractual working week of those associated with this claim is 39 hours and that an entitlement to overtime arises thereafter.
It is noted that the Union is claiming that a facility should exist whereby employees would work a 40 hour week and that the additional hour should accrue in the form of an additional six days annual leave. The Court believes that there may be merit in this proposal and it should be considered. However it should operate on a voluntary basis by agreement between the individuals and the Company
Breaks
Breaks should be in accordance with the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.
Overtime
Payment for overtime should be at the rates normally applied in industry generally which the Court understands to be as follows:-
Up to midnight Monday to Friday- Time-plus-one-half
After midnight and before normal starting time- Double time
Saturdays- Time-plus-one half for first four hours and double time thereafter
Sundays- Double time
Public Holidays- Double time plus one day in lieu
The Court does not recommend the payment of average overtime in respect of annual leave.
Travel time
The Company has told the Court that travel is paid for at overtime rates and that a Company vehicle is made available for work related travel. The Court recommends that this arrangement should be accepted in respect of the Union’s claim. The rate at which all such travel is paid should be time-plus-one-half.
Recognition for negotiation purposes
The Court recommends that the Company recognise the Union for the purposes of dealing with any industrial relations matters arising in the future through collective bargaining. The parties should initially have discussions with a view to putting in place a general framework within which the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to industrial relations matters, and the parameters of future negotiations, would be defined.
The parties should also negotiate and put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which conforms to the general principles contained in the Code of Practice on Grievance and Disciplinary Procedures (S.I. No 146/2000)
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th October 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.