FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : RENTOKIL INITIAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Allowances and Bonus Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 1stApril 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 14thJune 2016. The Employer did not attend the hearing but did outline its position to the Court in correspondence dated the 8 June 2016 which was received by the Court on the 13 June 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union have sought the restoration of a €79 per month meal allowance and the reinstatement back to December 2014 of a Christmas bonus of two weeks pay. The Union have tried 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. In 2009 Union members agreed to the suspension of a €79 meal allowance on condition that the matter be reviewed as soon as more favourable financial conditions emerged.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns claims by the Union for (i) pay increases; (ii) restoration of a Meal Allowance and (iii) restoration of a Christmas Bonus. The Union submitted the claims on behalf of fifteen General Operatives.
The Employer did not attend the hearing. The Court regards it as regrettable that the Employer failed to avail of the opportunity to outline its position and to provide the Court with details of its financial performance or otherwise.
The Union informed the Court that it had a practice of engaging in collective discussions with the Company including utilising the normal industrial relations institutions of the State. The Court notes that the matters in dispute have been the subject of discussions at a number of conciliation conferences at the Workplace Relations Commission. However, in contrast to the norm they have not been jointly referred to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
The Union stated that due to the difficulties experienced by the Company during the recession, at the request of the Company the Claimants had accepted detrimental changes to their conditions of employment in an effort to ensure continued security of employment. However, it now sought to restore those conditions and sought increases in pay.
The Union informed the Court that during the Conciliation conference discussions the Company indicated that it would return with a proposal to resolve the issues in dispute. However, no proposal was made and the issue was referred to the Court.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court recommends that within a period of four weeks from the date of this Recommendation the Company should re-engage with the Union to resolve matters, if no resolution can be agreed or if the Company do not abide by this Recommendation within that timeframe then the claims may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
Furthermore, the Court strongly recommends that the parties should make use of normal industrial relations procedures including the institutions of the State.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
22 June 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.