INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
BORD GAIS EIREANN
- AND -
Chairman: Mr Flood
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Lump sum payment
2. The Union is claiming payment of a lump sum under the Response 2000 Procedural Agreement between Bord Gais and the Union in respect of two Cork MSF members. The Response 2000 agreement provided for a lump sum of £5,000 payable in April 2000 and £2,750 payable in December 2000 on foot of a Labour Relations Commission letter dated 6th March 2000. The Unions voted on the agreement in the period, March to June 2000 when the agreement was formally accepted. The two workers in question were appointed during April 2000 and placed on the newly structured salary bands. The Company rejects the claim.
- 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 3rd April 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th July, 2003.
3. 1 The Union argues that its members are entitled to the full payments as the two workers were in full employment prior to formal agreement between the group of Unions and the Company on acceptance of Response 2000 in June 2000.
2 At no time did the Company seek or the Union agree to any arrangement that would exclude any employees recruited prior to the implementation date from the full benefits of the agreement. Prior to Response 2000 there were at least seven separate agreements with the Company covering areas represented by the Union. These agreements only ceased when Response 2000 came into operation on 1st June, 2000.
3. The lump sum payments applied to all employees in the Company on the implementation date without regard to their previous contracts of employment.
4. 1 The two Workers were appointed subsequent to Response 2000 and this is demonstrated by virtue of having been placed, from the outset on the newly structured salary bands.
2. The two workers did not have to make any adjustments in terms of restructuring or changes to conditions of employment. They do not satisfy theLead inandRelocationcriteria contained in the Labour Relations Commission's letter of 6th March 2000. In the circumstances there is no justification for making the pavements.
The Court is satisfied that as the operative date of the agreement between the parties is June, 2000, the normal industrial relations practise would dictate that the claimants would qualify for the disputed payments.
However, the Court cannot ignore the fact that they had benefited financially from the new agreement prior to this date.
Taking this into account, the Court recommends that the company pays the claimants
€4000 in full and final settlement of their claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd July, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.