FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AIBP WATERFORD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Unilateral reduction in piece rate and hygiene bonus payments to certain workers
BACKGROUND:
2. AIBP is part of the Irish Food Processing group of Companies. The Company has been aware for some time that it was uncompetitive in the abattoir due to the outdated previous piece rate system. The Company contends that it had no alternative but to change the system to one that better meets current needs and which will ensure its long term survival.
The dispute concerns changes in the piece rate and hygiene bonus pay system which has improved the pay for the majority but has substantially reduced it for 16 others. The Unions position is that these reduction were implemented without agreement and is seeking that they be reversed .
The 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 the 17th September, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th April, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. This case is taken on behalf of 8 Union members, the Union is seeking to have all 8 "red circled" on the old piece rate and hygiene bonus system and have all their losses reimbursed.
2. The losses amount to at least 26% to 30% for most but one individual has losses amounting to 37% of gross pay. This is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue without redress.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The claim is for the old piece rate system to be restored, if this was conceded it would place the jobs of all the remaining Employees on the line.
2. The new arrangement was accepted by the vast majority of Employees in the abattoir. Of the original 16 who rejected the changes, 2 have left the Company and 6 have accepted the offer of compensation leaving only 8 to continue to reject the proposals.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues before the Court is on behalf of eight workers where the Union claims that the Company unilaterally introduced a reduction in the piece rate and the hygiene bonus in May 2009.
The Company submitted that it was necessary to take these measures as over time the piece rate became unworkable which led to a situation where a number of employees were in receipt of the piece rate while others, recruited around 2004, were on hourly rates. In 2009 the Company sought to unify the pay structure and introduce a new piece rate structure. It submitted that the previous outdated piece rate system made the Company uncompetitive and it sought to abolish it and pay compensation for the resulting losses to those employees adversely effected.
The Union outlined details of the losses which would accrue to the 8 employees from the reductions in the piece rate and the hygiene bonus. These losses were in the order of between 26% and 39% of pay. It sought to “red circle” these employees and claimed reimbursement of losses incurred since May 2009.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties the Court notes that the piece rate and hygiene bonus have been in existence since 1991. The Court is of the view that amendments of such significance to existing conditions of employment must involve a process of negotiations and agreement between the parties. As there was no such agreement with the Union in this case the Court recommends that the piece rate and hygiene bonus should be restored retrospective to the date they were removed.
In the event that there are issues concerning the piece rate pool, then these issues should be the subject of negotiations between the parties using the normal industrial relations procedures.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th May, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.