FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KEELING'S DISTRIBUTION LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Outstanding pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates and manages the warehousing in a distribution centre in Ballymun, Dublin to service its major customer stores with chilled/frozen and fresh produce. The current major customer contract is due to expire in September 2012. A claim from the Union for a 6% increase in basic pay was not recommended by the Labour Court in October 2010, however the Court recommended that the claim be addressed through the process provided for in the 9 Point Plan Agreement in the first quarter of 2012. The Union subsequently rejected the Labour Court Recommendation and balloted for industrial action. This was deferred on foot of an invitation from the LRC to attend conciliation.
A number of conciliation meetings were held which culminated in a proposal which was recommended for acceptance by both parties. The proposal was subsequently rejected by the Union by a majority of 5. While the proposal covers a number of issues the substantive issue for the Union is pay, particularly that of the lower paid warehouse operatives who are currently on an hourly rate of €9.50.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 28th June 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 5th July, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The member's are of the view that as a result of the 9 point plan agreed in 2010 they are entitled to a 6% increase in pay. In return they already have agreed to comply with Management's request for greater efficiencies, flexibilities and other cost saving measures.
2. The additional service leave for longer term Workersoffered by the Company, falls short of member's expectations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the event that the pay increase due on 1st January 2013 is accepted by the Employees of the Company's major customer, then a similar percentage pay increase will be implemented for the Workers in Ballymun without the need for local negotiations.
2. Improvements to the service day's scheme was introduced under the agreement of 2007, arising from the introduction of the ACP programme which awards a maximum of 6 days after six years.
RECOMMENDATION:
- There are three issues involved in this dispute, namely: -
- 1. A Pay increase of 6% which the Unions believes is due on foot of an earlier agreement,
- 2. A claim for incremental progression for those employed on revised starting rates agreed in 2010,
- 3. A claim for additional service leave.
Pay increase
With regard to the claim for a pay increase, this matter was previously before the Court. In Recommendation LCR20183 the Court did not recommend concession of the Union’s claim. The Court did however recommend reengagement by the parties with a view to addressing the question of pay against certain specified criteria, including pay movement in analogous employments. While the Court notes the fact that Recommendation LCR20183 was rejected by the Union there is no basis upon which the Court can revise the position which it adopted in that recommendation.
It is noted that the Company have offered to adjust pay in line with any adjustment provided by its major customer in the case of its staff. This will provide an increase of 2% with effect from January 2013.
In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the Union should accept the Company’s offer.Revised Starting Rate
It is noted that the revised starting rates were introduced on foot of a collective agreement between the parties in 2010. The Court does not see any reasonable basis upon which the 2010 agreement should be materially changed at this time.Incentive Scheme
In the course of the hearing the Court was told that the Company’s principal customer is in the process of introducing an incentive scheme for those on the new entrant rate. The Company indicated its willingness to introduce a similar scheme for its staff on the new entrant rate if and when a scheme is introduced by its customer.
In the Court’s view the introduction of such a scheme has the potential to address some of the issues of concern to the Union in relation to pay levels. An incentive scheme, if properly structured and applied, should deliver enhanced earnings for those associated with these claims linked to improvements in efficiency and output.
The Court believes that such a scheme should now be introduced. While due regard should be had to the terms of the scheme introduced by the customer, the specifics of the Company scheme should be negotiated between the Company and the Union. The object of the scheme should be to provide the opportunity for staff to achieve reasonable levels of enhanced earnings on a cost neutral basis by linking payments under the scheme to increased output and productivity. There should also be provision for a review of the scheme’s effectiveness in meeting the objective referred to above after it has been in operation for a period of not less than 12 months.
The Court recommends that the parties should enter negotiations on design and introduction of such a scheme as soon as practicable after the acceptance of this recommendation. If agreement is not reached by 31stOctober 2012 the matter may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.Additional Service Leave
The Court recommends that this matter be disposed of on the basis of what was agreed at conciliation.Other Matters
The Court recommends that all other aspects of the proposals agreed at conciliation should be accepted without amendmentSpecial Payment
On acceptance of this Recommendation and the conclusion of an agreement between the parties disposing of all outstanding issues the Company should make a special once-off payment of €350 to each affected worker.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
6th July 2012______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.