FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MURPHY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - 60 MECHANICAL OPERATIVES (REPRESENTED BY UNITE THE UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Site Allowance, Shift Allowance Dispute
BACKGROUND:
2. This case was referred to the Labour Court by the Workplace Relations Commission, who having considered the trade dispute in question, and in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, formed the opinion that no further efforts on its part would resolve the matters in dispute. Both parties agreed to refer the dispute to the Court.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim for the ‘re-introduction’ of a site allowance which the Trade Union submits was in place on the site until 2007 / 2008. The Union submits that the site allowance amounted to 7.5 hours per week paid at time plus a half.
The employer submits that no such site allowance existed on the site and that the Union claim amounts to a claim for an increase in pay of 28.8%. The employer submits that concession of the claim would threaten the survival of the business and lead to job losses. The employer also submits that no other group on site has made a claim for a site allowance.
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The sole basis for the claim before the Court is the contention that such an allowance existed until 2007 / 2008 when it was removed by agreement. The Union has submitted that the removal of the allowance was put to the membership at the start of the recessionary period and was agreed to.
At the hearing of the Court it emerged that no party had documentary evidence in the form of payroll / payslip records to support the contention that a site allowance existed prior to 2007 / 2008. Neither was either party able to put before the Court any written record of an agreement providing for such an allowance or an agreement providing for its removal.
Having regard to the entirety of the written and oral submissions of the parties the Court is unable to identify a basis for concluding that a site allowance existed on the site prior to 2007 / 2008. In those circumstances the Court cannot recommend the concession of such an allowance now on the basis presented.
For the reasons outlined above the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
The court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
R.K.______________________
13.02.20Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Richard Kennedy, Court Secretary.