FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : JOHNSTON LOGISTICS LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY ESA CONSULTANTS) - AND - TWO GROUPS OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY UNITE THE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Pay increase, shift allowance and overtime rate for 20 + workers in Naas and 4 drivers in Cobh in the Company represented by Unite the Union.
BACKGROUND:
2. This issue relates to a refusal by the Employer to engage with employees in relation to pay increase, shift allowance and overtime rate since July 2017.
As this dispute could not be resolved at local level, Unite the Union requested the services of the Workplace Relations Commission to investigate the dispute.
The Company however refused to engage. Unite then referred the matter to the Labour Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31stof May 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an immediate pay increase of 15%.
2. The Union is requesting that the overtime rates of 1.5 times the hourly rate be restored.
3. The Union is requesting that a shift allowance of 1.3 times the flat hourly rate be paid.
4. The Company set up an Employee Involvement Forum ("EIF") without any union engagement. This has not resulted in any real improvements to workers' pay and conditions.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Employees have received increased pay and improved conditions and benefits since 2009.
2. An EIF was introduced for all employees in 2017 in order to consult and engage with employees directly.
3. The Company will continue to engage with its employees directly through the EIF, which it believes has delivered dividends to both sides.
4. The Company requests that the Court acknowledges their rights and to allow it to continue to negotiate directly with its employees through the EIF.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that there has been no engagement on any of the issues raised by the Union. This is because the Employer’s policy is not to deal with unions but, rather, to deal with issues regarding pay and conditions through an internal forum. The Court understands that, historically, this Company did engage positively with the unions representing its workforce and the Court was advised that the parent Company, Dachser, recognises and negotiates with the union, VerDi, in Germany.
The Court recommends that the Employer extends recognition to the Union in respect of its members in the Company and recommends further that it should engage with the Union on the matters in contention.
The Court is of the view that a group of workers is entitled to seek engagement with their employer and that they should be afforded the same opportunity to avail of professional representation as is available to the Employer.
Indeed, the Court notes that the Employer chose to be represented by an outside professional representative when appearing before the Court as, of course, they are entitled to do.
It is the Union’s contention that the pay and conditions of their members compare unfavourably with similar employments. This contention is best tested through engagement. If agreement cannot be reached in direct engagement, it is open to either party, or both parties, to seek to utilise the State’s industrial relations machinery in order to assist in securing a resolution.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
CH______________________
14 June 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Carol Hennessy, Court Secretary.