FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNON HERITAGE DAC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Change Frequency Of Payroll.
BACKGROUND:
2. The 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 the 5 February, 2018, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th June, 2018. The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- Adequate compensation must be afforded to members given the financial implications and inconvenience in rearranging their affairs with creditors and other financial institutions.
- The Company has never declared an inability to pay it's members for their cooperation.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- The change in payroll frequency will aid in reducing manual input, resulting in a saving of time for the Company which can be allocated elsewhere, and, ensure the company is in compliance with "Real Time Reporting" legislation.
- The change will be implemented during low season while permanent and part time seasonal workers will be given written notice well in advance of their return to work date.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue in dispute between the parties arises from the Employer’s proposal to move from a weekly to a fortnightly payroll. There are three categories of staff affected by this proposal 1) permanent staff 2) permanent seasonal staff and 3) non-permanent seasonal staff.
Union’s position.
The Union are not opposed to the change in principle however they believe the Workers should be offered some compensation. The proposed change to a fortnightly payroll will mean having to change direct debits, standing orders and other repayments. The Union accepts management proposal to offer a six month loan to staff to facilitate the change-over but they believe staff should also be compensated for the inconvenience arising from the change. It is the Unions position that both the loan facility and compensation should be paid to all staff.
Employer’s position.
The change from weekly to fortnightly pay was necessary to reduce the administrative cost and resource burden of the payroll process. While the Company will not make any financial savings it will free up resources that can be deployed elsewhere. The Company is proposing that the change will take place from October 2018 at the end of the season when all of the seasonal staff will have finished. Financially, the company is not in a position to accede to the Unions request of an additional days annual leave and a voucher for €500 for all SIPTU members regardless of their employment status.
The Court having read the parties submissions and listened carefully to the oral submissions on the day recommends as follows:
In relation to permanent employees and permanent seasonal employees that the Employer where requested make available a loan of one net week’s wages repayable over a 3 or 6 months cycle to be agreed with the Worker.
That a voucher for €200 be paid to each of these staff at the time of the introduction of the change and a further €200 voucher to be given a year later (oct 2019).
In relation to non-permanent seasonal staff that where practical, they be given three months notice of the change to the payroll frequency.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
JD______________________
14 June 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.