INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
HOYER (IRELAND) LTD
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
1. Various claims.
2. The Company specialises in the transport of bulk liquids, powders and gases. It is a subsidiary of Hoyer Hamburg and has operated in Ireland for ten years.
The Company employs a workforce of over fifty employees, twelve clerical and the remainder being drivers and aircraft refuellers. The Company operates a number of distribution contracts for Esso, I.C.I., Shell Chemicals and Bord Gais. It also delivers tank containers from Europe and elsewhere, which are handled by sub-contractors.
The Company's main contract is the Esso Fuel Distribution contract. It was awarded the contract in December, 1995, and employs twenty full-time and ten temporary drivers at four locations - Dublin, Cork, Sligo and New Ross.
The Union has submitted the following claim on behalf of the workers concerned:-
(a) Holidays - increase in entitlement from 18 to 20 days
(b) Pension - the Union seeks the introduction of a defined benefit
(c) Shift rate - the Union seeks an increase in shift rate from 10%
(d) Holiday pay - the Union seeks calculation of holiday pay on
the basis of the average of the previous 13 weeks
including shift and overtime. Currently holiday
pay is based on basic pay only.
(e) Basic rate - the current rate is £266 per week and the Union seeks
£300 per week
(f) Overalls - the Union seeks either an undertaking from the
Company to clean overalls or an allowance for same
allowance - the Union seeks an increase in overnight allowance
( h) Travel
allowance - the Union seeks an increase in rate from 33p per mile
to 44p per mile
The Company rejected the Union's claims. As no agreement was possible between the parties, the dispute was referred to the Conciliation Service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 18th December, 1995 but was adjourned until 8th January, 1996. At this conference the Company put forward proposals to resolve the dispute. The proposals were balloted on by the Union members and were rejected. As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th April, 1996 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 4th June, 1996.
3. 1. The vast majority of organised employees in the private sector have twenty days annual leave. The Company should concede this claim.
2. The employees concerned have a right to a Company pension scheme. All competitor companies have such a scheme.
3. The shift rate and holiday pay should be brought into line with that of other sections of the Company
4. The basic rate of pay is low when compared to competitor companies and should be improved upon.
5. The overnight and travel allowances should be increased to bring them into line with similar type operations.Employees should not be expected to give cover at their own expense.
4. 1. The Company operates in a very competitive market. It must keep costs down to survive.
2. The claim submitted is cost increasing and is therefore excluded under Clause 6 of the PCW.
3. The workers concerned signed a contract in relation to terms and conditions of employment.
4. Any further increase in costs would erode any competitive advantage and put jobs at risk.
5. At the conciliation conference on the 8th January, 1996 the Company made an offer to resolve the dispute, but it was rejected.
The Court has considered all of the issues raised by the parties in their oral and written submissions and makes the following recommendation.
1.Holidays- That the holidays be increased by an additional day in 1996 and a further additional day in 1997.
2.Shift Premium- The Court recommends that the present shift premium of 10%
3.Holiday Pay-That holiday pay be calculated on the basis of basic pay
plus shift premium plus £75.00.
4.Sick Pay- That sick pay be paid in accordance with the proposals of the
5.Overall Cleaning- The Court does not recommend concession of the Union
6.Overnight and Travel Allowance- That the overnight allowance be increased
to £30.00 and that the mileage payment as proposed by the Company (36p)
7.Pension- That the parties negotiate the introduction of a pension scheme
without preconditions by either party.
8.Basic Pay- The Court does not recommend any increase in basic pay.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
18th June, 1996______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.