FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRITVIC IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS & EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Rates of pay for new starters.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Company's decision to introduce reduced rates of pay for new starters. This 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 11th October, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th January, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Company has unilaterally imposed significant changes on the Workers.
2 The Company has acted with blatant disregard to agreed local procedures.
3 The Workers' previous terms and conditions of employment should be restored along with full retrospection.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company, with falling revenues and margins, and an increasingly uncompetitive cost base, is struggling to survive.
2 The Company's labour costs are significantly higher than its main competitor.
3. The Company had to introduce revised pay rates for new starters in order to protect the sustainability of the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court notes that the 12 workers involved had their employment terminated in November 2011. Management confirmed to the Court that on that occasion the workers had a reasonable expectation that they would be re-employed within a reasonable period of time. As events transpired they were re-employed in March 2012. As a matter of law, therefore, their employment was continuous for the purposes of the Redundancy Payments Acts and period between November 2011 and March 2012 amounted to a period of lay-off. Accordingly the workers concerned cannot reasonably be considered “new starts” when they resumed employment.
Moreover the legacy agreements in place between the Company and the Union that govern the terms and conditions of employment of the workforce do not provide for any reduction in pay for this group of workers. It was common case that negotiations on the new agreement governing the pay and conditions of the workforce took place on the basis that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed. Management was on notice that the rate of pay of this group of workers was a matter of dispute between the parties that has not been resolved to date. Accordingly they were and remain entitled to be re-employed under and paid in accordance with the terms of those legacy agreements.
The Court recommends therefore that the rate of pay of this group of workers be brought into line with the provisions of the legacy agreements in place in the Company. The Court further recommends that adjustment to bring them into line with the terms of the legacy agreements should be applied with effect from the date on which the period of lay-off ended.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
16th January, 2013______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.