FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KILDARE CHILLING COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Wage Claim - Calculation.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Union and the Employer in relation to the application of a pay increase. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim that the Employer has failed to correctly apply the terms of a pay agreement to a number of its members employed as Boners in the Employer's Kildare-based site. The Union contends that the pay increase should have been applied to Base Rate II at the same level as agreed for Base Rate I (the fall back rate). The Employer maintains that the terms of the agreement were correctly applied. Furthermore, the Employer contends that these Workers received a once-off lump sum payment to reflect the terms of the pay agreement. The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences held under the auspices of the former Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th October, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Employer has incorrectly applied the terms of the pay agreement.
2. The Union is seeking the retrospective payment of all outstanding monies owing to these Workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the pay agreement, as understood by all parties, was applied correctly to these Workers.
2. The Employer contends that the pay increase was applied to the base rate of the Workers, as per the terms of the pay agreement.
3. The Employer is of the view that it has honoured the terms of the agreement in full.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a dispute regarding the interpretation of an agreement between the Company and the Union agreed in December 2014. The agreement emerged following negotiations at the Labour Relations Commission (as it was then known) on a claim for an increase in pay. The Labour Relations Commission put forward proposals dated 4thDecember 2014 with a recommendation from both sides for acceptance. Following a ballot by the Union membership it was accepted and agreed. The agreement provided for a pay increase of two phases of 2% covering a period of 28 months from 1stDecember 2014.
The claim before the Court is on behalf of the Beef Boners employed by the Company who maintain that the agreement has been misinterpreted in its application to them. Beef Boners are paid mostly by a piece rate system, however they have a fall-back basic rate of €11.87 per hour (paid in the event that there is no beef to be boned). They also have a weekly basic rate, Base II rate, which is €28.65 per week, this is paid on a regular basis on top of the piece rate. The agreement provided that the increases would apply to the basic rate only and not to the piece rate, and instead it provided that Beef Boners would receive a once off lump sum payment.
The dispute surrounds the application of the two phases of 2% increases to the basic rate. The Union submitted that the fall-back rate of €11.87 increased by the 2% increases, (first phase will yield an increase of €9.36 per week) and this weekly amount should then be applied to the weekly Base II rate, thereby yielding a rate of €38.01 per week. The Company disputed this interpretation and stated that the agreement balloted upon and accepted by the Union provided for an increase in the Base II rate of 2%, thereby yielding a weekly basic rate of €29.22 in the first phase.
Having considered the submissions made and having examined the December 2014 agreement, the Court is satisfied that the increases were correctly applied as per the agreement. Therefore, the Court does not support the Union’s claim.
The Court notes that the Company offered a gesture of €75.00 to the Beef Boners in order to bring closure to the dispute and confirmed that this payment was still available.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
26th October 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.