FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : Q.K. MEATS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Various Issues
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is an independent boning hall based in Naas since 1979. In common with other plants it has suffered significant losses during recent years, Management in an effort to halt the decline in the business have proposed a major restructuring plan which was announced in late 2007. As a result of the restructuring 22 Workers were made redundant and a further 12 Workers were redeployed to sister companies of QK Meats. SIPTU on behalf of Employees of the Company sought a meeting with the Management to discuss conditions of employment, the Company refused to negotiate with the Union.
On the 19th May, 2008, the Union referred the issues to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,1969.
In February, 2009 some members of the workforce sought to have the Union negotiate on their behalf the Management rejected this stating that no trade dispute existed and that in any event an internal disputes resolution procedure existed for the purpose of any negotiations.
In order to address these questions the Court, with the consent of the parties undertook interviews of the workforce in private in order to ascertain the level of demand for Union representation.
A Labour Court hearing was arranged and the Employer informed the Court by letter that it would not attend.
The Labour Court hearing took place on the 12th March, 2009, the Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The introduction of the 39 hour week should have coincided with a pro-rata increase in the hourly and overtime rate which in turn must reflect what is contained in "Towards 2016".
2. The Company must establish a sick-pay and pension scheme of its Workers as this has become the industry norm.
3. Union recognition must be accepted by the Company in order that present and future disputes can be addressed using a proper framework.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. Initially the employer raised questions concerning the existence of a trade dispute between it and the Union. In order to address these questions the Court agreed, with the consent of the parties, to undertake interviews in private with a group of employees, some of whom were members of SIPTU and some of whom were not. The Court also spoke to two members of an internal representative body. The Court conclusions arising from those interviews were communicated to the parties by letter dated 13th January 2009. In that letter the Court stated, inter alia, : -
- As a result of what it was told in the course of these interviews the Court is satisfied that a body of employees of the Company are members of SIPTU and wish to have SIPTU represent them in negotiations with the Company on matters affecting their employment. The Court is further satisfied that these employees have grievances in relation to their rates of pay, overtime rates, the reduction of their pay in consequence of the introduction of a 39 hour week, bonus payments and the absence of a sick pay scheme.
Those interviewees who are members of the Union indicated to the Court that they do not consider the internal representative forum as adequate to address their grievances.
The Union presented a number of claims which were set out in its submission to the Court as follows:-
1. The implementation of a 39 hour week,
2. The application of the terms of Towards 2016,
3. The appropriate overtime rates,
4. Application of pay determination mechanism
5. Introduction of a sick pay scheme
6. Introduction of a pension scheme
7. Agreed representative structures
With regard to the introduction of a 39 hour week, the Court was told that the employer did reduce the standard working week but implemented a pro rata reduction in pay. It seems perfectly clear that the Union’s claim is that the normal working hours of its members be reduced to 39 per week, in line with normal practice in industry generally, but without loss of pay. The Court is satisfied that the Union’s claim in that regard is reasonable. It recommends that in line with normal practice the reduction in the working week should be without loss of pay and that the hourly rate should be adjusted to reflect the reduced working hours.
It is clear to the Court that the other items raised by the Union could best be dealt with by discussion between the parties with a view to reaching agreement. In that regard, as a matter of general principle, the Court believes that consideration should be given to the payment of overtime rates in line with the norms established in analogous employment. Likewise consideration should be given to the introduction of sick pay and pension arrangements. An agreed pay determination mechanism is also highly desirable and in line with good practice.
The employer has made it clear that it is not prepared to recognise the Union for industrial relations purposes. The Court is satisfied that a body of employees of the Company are in membership of SIPTU and wish to be represented by that Union in matters of difference with their employer, including the matters highlighted in the Union’s claims.
There are clearly serious difficulties which would have to be overcome before any functioning working relationship could be developed between the parties. The Court recommends that as a first step the Company and the Union should have discussion with a view to identifying a basis upon which industrial relations and employment related issues, including outstanding issues raised in this referral, could be addressed within a mutually acceptable framework.
The parties should consider seeking the assistance of the Labour Relations Commission in these discussions, or alternatively they should engage the services of a facilitator with experience in this field. Should the parties wish the Court to elaborate on this aspect of its recommendation it is prepared to do so on the joint application of the parties.
These discussions should commence as early as possible and should be concluded within a timeframe of not more than 13 weeks. The services of the Court will continue to be available to the parties in seeking to address any outstanding issues not resolved in the Recommendation above.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th April, 2009______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.