FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KEELINGS LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Geraghty Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Sunday Premium.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim for a Sunday premium payment.
The Union said that Sunday working has always been a requirement of the working week for the Company dating back to 1998. The Union is not satisfied that the Company has shown it has provided a Sunday premium to the Workers.
The Employer said that all terms and conditions are negotiated collectively with SIPTU and a consolidated pay arrangement has been in place since 1998.
- 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 the 28 January 2019 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 25 September 2019 and 24 February 2020.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case was referred to the Court under the Industrial Relations Act, under which Act the role of the Court is to assist the parties in resolving a trade dispute. This is not a case under the Organisation of Working Time Act.
The Company’s strong view was that the composite rate of pay for the Workers concerned incorporates additional payment for Sunday work and that any requirement to make further payments would amount to having to pay twice for this. Furthermore, they argued that the prohibitive cost of simply conceding the claim as it stands would have potentially damaging consequences for the viability of the relevant contract.
For their part, the Union argued that there is no explicit provision in any collective agreement that makes clear that the composite rate includes extra payment for Sunday and they urged the Court to be careful in accepting cost figures put forward by the Company, which could not be verified.
The Court, for its part, made it clear, and reiterates here, that it could not, and would not, risk making a Recommendation that would, or could, have the potential impact of inflicting considerable financial problems on the Company.
In the course of the hearing, the Company made an offer, which involves, in effect, the transfer of the current premium for Saturday working to Sunday. This would involve extra cost for the Company but at a scale that could be absorbed.
The Union conveyed clearly its position that this offer was not a sufficient basis for a resolution of the dispute. However, at the prompting of the Court, both parties accepted that the offer might be a start point for discussions, with a view to arriving at a possible outcome that would not involve what the Company regards as a potentially ruinous double payment but which, from the Union viewpoint, would improve on the Company’s offer.
The Court recommends, therefore, that the parties should engage immediately to establish if it is possible to build on the Company’s offer in order to reach a mutually acceptable outcome. The Court recommends further that the parties should feel free to utilise the services of the Workplace Relations Commission and, in any event, should do so if a resolution has not been reached by the end of May. The Commission may, of course, refer any outstanding issues back to the Court, should it be necessary, at that point.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom Geraghty
CR______________________
4 March, 2020Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.