FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : FAMAC INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - MARINE, PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGrath Employer Member: Mr Brennan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 13 workers, for an increase in basic pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company provides a delivery service to business parcel traffic and employs 28 workers. The 13 workers concerned are employed in the administration warehouse and transport departments. The Union's claim, submitted on 13 August, 1996 sought an improvement in basic pay/overtime rates, a 39 hour week, a procedural agreement, shift pay, sick pay, pension scheme, etc. Local level discussions failed to resolve the issues specifically in relation to basic pay/overtime. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the 13th November and 2nd December, 1996. Agreement was not possible and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 13th December, 1996. A Court hearing was held on the 23rd January, 1997.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the Company eventually conceded the 39 hour week at conciliation its proposals relating to basic pay rates and overtime are not acceptable. A substantial improvement is required. The current pay rates are significantly out of line with industry norms. The basic rate of pay for a 39 hour week should be set at the level of current earnings for a 45 hour week.
2. Labour Court recommendation 15175, issued in May, 1996 recommended that the Company accord the right to the Union to represent its members in the employment. The Union has sought to negotiate terms and conditions of employment on their behalf. However the Company has been very reluctant to negotiate in a meaningful way. Its proposals on pay (the absolute minimum under the circumstances) are not acceptable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Following LCR15175 the Company entered negotiations with the Union and agreement was reached that a procedural agreement, grievance and disciplinary procedures, and sick pay for the first three days would be put in place. The Company has offered to reduce the working week to 39 hours, proposed that a night shift premium be introduced for night staff, and overtime would be paid at the rate of time and a half after 40 hours. Under this proposal earnings would increase although the basic working week's hours would be reduced.
2. The Company's proposals were based on comparisons with the industry rate, its ability to pay and with due regard being given to the Working Time Directive which resulted in an extra cost to the Company in terms of cover and potential added overtime costs.
3. The Company cannot accept that the hourly rate should be worked out from the existing rate on the basis of a 39 hour week because of the significant cost implications. The Company sustained losses over a number of years and only achieved a very small profit in 1996 (details to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the issues raised by the parties in the oral and written submissions recommends that the proposals of the Company in respect of hours, rates of pay and shift premium should be implemented with effect from the date of issue of this recommendation.
The parties should immediately discuss the remaining outstanding issues contained in the list in the union letter of 13 August 1996 and seek to reach agreement on these as expeditiously as possible.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
4th February, 1997______________________
T.O'D./S.G.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.