FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : STL LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Claim for pay retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for retrospective pay for forty-one Workers following a transfer of undertakings to STL Logistics in 2011.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 26 March 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 31 May 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union argued that its members were grossly underpaid while working for STL Logistics and also for previous employers involved in the Diageo logistics contract.
2. The Union says that its members are now receiving a fair wage but that they are entitled to recognition for the underpayment that they have endured previously.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer says that since the workers became employees of STL Logistics there have been considerable improvements in benefits for each employee.
2.The Employer argued they were not in a position to offerretrospection as STL Logistics operate on very tight margins as does the entire logistics industry in Ireland. The Employer says that its position on retrospection has been consistent throughout the process.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute concerns a claim for retrospective pay for forty-one Workers employed by STL Logistics (‘the Company’) as drivers and helpers in the Dublin and Leinster areas. The Workers concerned transferred to the Company’s employment in 2011 by operation of the EC (Protection of Employees on the Transfer of Undertakings) Regulations 2003.
Thereafter, the Parties engaged locally and under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission (‘the WRC’) to address the disparity between the acquired Workers’ terms and conditions and those of the Company’s established workforce. It was agreed, following that process, that an external review of the Workers’ pay and other terms and conditions, by means of a comparative benchmarking exercise, would be undertaken jointly by two independent consultants, one nominated by the Company and the other by the Union. Pending the outcome of that independent review, the WRC recommended the Workers receive an interim increase in basic pay of 6% with effect from 5 October 2018 plus a lump sum payment of €1,250.00 per Worker “as a lead in payment” and in recognition of the delay in resolving the dispute. This proposal was implemented by the Company.
The external consultants issued their proposals for the resolution of all outstanding issues on 16 November 2018. They then furnished the Parties with a number of points of clarification on 21 December 2018. The Workers balloted on, and accepted, the pay and productivity proposals that emerged from the external benchmarking exercise. It was noted, however, by the external consultants in their clarification document that the Union continued to raise the issue of retrospection although the Company believed this had been fully addressed by means of the interim payment proposed by the WRC. The Parties agreed to refer the issue of retrospection (to cover the period from 1 January 2017 up until 7 October 2018) to the Court for a binding recommendation.
The Union submits that the WRC’s recommendation of a lump sum payment of €1,250.00 per Worker in October 2018 did not make any reference to retrospection and that that payment was made only in recognition of the delay in resolving the dispute between the Parties. The Company submits that the payment of €1,250.00 covered the period form 1 January 2017 to 7 October 2018 (92 weeks) and equated to an annualised 2.8% of a driver’s basic pay and 3% of a helper’s annualised basic pay.
Recommendation
The Court, having considered in some detail the protracted history of the within dispute, recommends that that Company, in full and final settlement, provide each of the Workers concerned with a once-off tax-free voucher to the value of €500.00, to be paid in accordance with Revenue rules.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CC______________________
20 June 2019Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.