FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FANAGANS FUNERAL DIRECTORS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay parity issue
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 27 August 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 November 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union argues that this dispute concerns nine drivers and that the result is a significant pay gap between these drivers, referred to as B Drivers Crew, established in 2009 and the other crew, referred to as A Drivers Crew.
2. The Union says that the B Drivers Crew feel that this issue will never be resolved until the current annual allowance of €3,250 agreed in 2011, is integrated into their basis rate of pay.
3. The significant pay gap between the two crews has become a source of rancour ever since and continues to be at the centre of this dispute.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company says that it operates in a deeply competitive marketplace and that there has been a significant number of Funeral Directors operating in Dublin in the period involved.
2. The Company argues that sustainable, market reflective remuneration packages are as relevant now in 2018 as they were in 2009. The Company, it says, is widely acknowledged by its peers as having the best terms and conditions within the Industry.
3. Any upward pressure on wages within the drivers section may lead to increased wage demands in other areas of business where 60 other people are employed.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties involves 9 SIPTU- represented Drivers. Arising from an agreement a number of years ago there are two rates of pay for Drivers the A Fleet rate and the B Fleet Rate. The A rate is a historical rate which applies to three drivers on a personal to holder basis. The Union is seeking to have the B Fleet rate increased to match the higher A Fleet rate. The Employer in the past introduced an allowance to reduce the pay gap between the rates and it is their contention that the A rate is to expire when the last of the three drivers currently on that rate leave the company. The Employer is prepared to make some adjustment to the current allowance. However, this is not acceptable to the Union.
Following a major restructuring of the Company in 2009 the B Driver Fleet rate was established. At that time the casual drivers were made permanent and were placed on the B rate. The existing permanent drivers at that time had their allowances consolidated which resulted in a higher basic rate of the pay, the A rate. However, over time the pay gap between the rates has expanded significantly as a result of percentage-based pay increases. While the allowance that is paid to the drivers has mitigated the pay differential to some extent the allowance does not attract pay increases and therefore the pay gap continues to grow.
It is the Employer’s position that the A rate is red circled and on a person to holder for the three remaining drivers on that rate. The B rate applies to the drivers that are the subject of this claim and other grades such as Ambulance drivers and Bearers. When the allowance was introduced for the B Drivers it was on the basis that it would not be renegotiated and would not attract salary increases.
It was never the intention to create a pathway to full parity with the A rate. The Employer is prepared to consider stabilising the gap however it is their position that the remuneration package that they offer to the B Drivers compares very favourably to industry norms.
The Court having read the submissions of the parties and listened carefully to the submissions on the day considers the reference to A and B rates of pay is misleading as there appears to be only one operating rate of pay the B rate, with three members of staff on a now defunct rate of pay on a personal to holder basis the A rate of pay. The Court recommends that the existing allowance of €3250 paid to the Drivers covered by this claim be increased as follows;
With effect from 1stJuly 2018 increase by €1,218
With effect from 1stJuly 2019 increase by €1,218
Going forward the pay gap between the Drivers covered by this claim and the Drivers on the red circled rate should be stabilised to ensure no further pay drift.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
CC______________________
4 December, 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.