FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : SEVERN TRENT RESPONSE - AND - GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. A pay claim, a claim for an allowance, minimum call out payment and the introduction of overtime rates
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for a 25% pay increase, an on call allowance, minimum call out payment and the introduction of overtime rates for all work in excess of normal finishing times each day and on weekends.
On the 19 January 2016 the Union referred the dispute to the Labour Court 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 the 1 April 2016. The Employer did not attend the hearing but did outline its position to the Court in correspondence dated the 8 February 2016 which was received by the Court on the 29 March 2016.
- The Employers position is that “it will engage directly with employees to resolve any concerns they may have”. The correspondence goes on to say “We are currently carrying out a bench marking exercise to look at the terms and conditions offered with our roles. We also have an annual salary/allowance review ongoing across all group companies..”
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has attempted to engage with the employer on several occasions in the past directly and through the services of the state dispute resolution mechanisms without success.
2. The employees salaries, overtime rates and on call terms fall well below that payable to workers in the private and public sector and below their counterparts employed by the same employer at another site.
3. The contract of employment provides for an annual bonus which has only been paid on one occasion since 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns claims by TEEU on behalf of two craft workers relating to various pay related issues such as basic pay, overtime rates and on-call allowances.
The Company did not attend the hearing. In its correspondence to the Court, it indicated that it would engage directly with its employees and was presently carrying out a benchmarking exercise. Furthermore, it stated that an annual/salary/allowance review was ongoing across all its companies.
On 1stApril 2015, the Court issued Recommendation No 20967 which recommended that the Company should recognise the Union on behalf of its members for all industrial relations purposes. It also recommended that the parties should enter into negotiations with a view to concluding a collective agreement. No such collective agreement has been entered into.
On 3rdNovember 2015, the Union submitted a claim to the Company for increases in pay and improvements to overtime premia and on-call allowances. The Company responded stating that it was undertaking a wage review for all staff. On 24thFebruary 2016 the Company submitted its proposals which included a 5% increase in pay and an increase of €50.00 on the on-call allowance. This was rejected by the workers concerned.
It is regrettable that the Company refused to follow normal industrial relations procedures as recommended by the Court to deal with the Union on the issues in dispute.
Having considered the matter, the Court notes that the Company is presently engaged in carrying out a benchmarking exercise and that an annual review of salaries is ongoing, the outcome of which will be known later in the year and any award will be paid in July. The Court is of the view that the outcome of these combined processes should be awaited, prior to the Court making a recommendation on the claims before it. However, in the meantime, the Court recommends that these processes should take cognisance of the terms and conditions of employment (including rates of pay) of similar categories of workers engaged in the sewage/water treatment sector. Furthermore, the Court recommends that the Company should permit and make provision for the Union to have an input into the benchmarking process.
In the event that there are outstanding issues following that exercise the Court will issue a definitive recommendation on the claims submitted by the Union.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
15 April 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.