FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SLANEY FOODS INTERNATIONAL LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Pay and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company employs approximately 300 staff at its beef processing plant in Wexford. The employees of the Company became members of SIPTU in March 2002. The Company did not initially recognise the Union. Following recognition of the Union, unsuccessful negotiations took place between the Company and the Union. The dispute involves the claim by the Union for improvements to conditions and the introduction of a pay structure.
The Union's claim is as follows:
- 20% increase in attendance bonus
- Integration of bonus into basic
- Abolition of Grades C and D
- Introduction of 13 weeks sick pay
- Introduction of a defined Benefit Pension Scheme within 6 months and the introduction of Death in Service Provision.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 29th April, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 27th November, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Throughout the period of 'negotiations' the Company failed to engage in any way or recognise the issues involved.
2. The conditions of employment for members falls behind those in comparable employments in the industry and their situation needs to be revised immediately.
3. The Union request that the basic rate of pay should be adjusted to a satisfactory level.
4. The Company has a vast and complex financial structure and therefore it is impossible to track the issue of profitability with any great accuracy.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Beef Industry has undergone a major period of turmoil due to the BSE crisis.Increased costs and loss of revenue sources caused by the BSE crisis and other increased costs, have resulted in significant losses by the Company in 2000-2003.
2. The Company, because of its poor financial position, have asked its employees to accept a pay freeze until the end of 2003. This was deemed necessary to keep the company in a healthy state to pursue its business plan for the future.
3. The Company has invested €5m in the last three years in order to keep pace with customer demands.
4. The pay systems and work patterns in place, have maintained daily rates and increased weekly and annual earnings potential and compare favourably with the Company's competitors in the Beef Industry.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that there has been no real negotiations between the parties on the claims now before the Court. Furthermore, the claims do not appear to be based on any comparison with analogous employment. In these circumstances, the Court does not consider it appropriate to make any recommendation on these claims at this time.
The Court recommends that as an initial measure, the parties should adopt the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress. If it can be established that current rates are significantly out of line with comparable employments, this should be addressed under the special arrangements which allow claims in excess of the basic terms to be pursued in respect of newly unionised workers. Equally, should the Company wish to claim inability to pay the terms of that agreement the appropriate procedures should be utilised.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
12th December, 2003______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.