INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr O'Neill
1. 1. 2% local bargaining under Partnership 2000. 2. Pension improvements.
2. The Company is a flour milling operation located at Ringsend. It is a subsidiary of IAWS Group plc. There are two sites under the same management (i) Bolands Mill site and (ii) Dock Mill site.
The dispute before the Court concerns:-
1. 2% local bargaining under Partnership 2000.
2. Improvements to the Pension Scheme.
2% Local Bargaining under Partnership 2000
The Company agreed to pay the 2% effective from January, 1999.
The Union is seeking payment of the 2% with effect from July, 1998.
Improvements to the Pension Scheme
Pension entitlements differed between the two sites.
In January, 1999 the Company agreed to improve the Pension schemes. For Bolands Mill workers the mortality benefit was raised from two to three years basic pay and for Dock Mill workers it was raised from one to two years. The Company also agreed to fund the spouses pension.
The Union is seeking the introduction of income continuance for Bolands Mill workers and the mortality benefit raised to three years basic pay for Dock Mill workers.
The Company rejected the claim.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 17th of May, 1999. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th of August, 1999, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The 2% local bargaining should be paid with effect from July, 1998 as the workers are entitled to it.
2. It is unfair to have different pension entitlements for two sets of workers employed by the same Company.
3. The Union is seeking the introduction of income continuance for the Bolands Mill staff which was only available to the Dock Mill staff and the mortality benefit for Dock Mill staff raised to three years basic pay.
4. Pension entitlements throughout the industry have been greatly improved under Partnership 2000.
4. 1. In September, 1998 the Company introduced the operation of new equipment in the milling but did not get the co-operation from the workers. Therefore, they feel they are justified in only paying the 2% from January, 1999.
2. The Pension Schemes which exist in both sites compare very favourably with pension schemes throughout the industry.
3. The Company cannot concede to the Union's claim for further improvements to the Pension Scheme. At the moment income continuance only applies to seven employees. The Company cannot afford to extend this to all employees.
The Court recommends as follows in relation to the two claims presented by the Union:-
2% Increase under Partnership 2000
Having regard to the terms of Clause 2(iii) of Partnership 2000 and the guidelines on its application agreed between IBEC and ICTU, the Court recommends that the increase be applied from the due date (July, 1998).
Having regard to the projected cost implications of the changes sought and the fact that significant adjustments in the scheme were recently introduced, the Court recommends that the Union should not pursue its claim at this time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
16th September, 1999______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.