INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
KERRY AGRI BUSINESS
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Back pay
2. In 1991, the Agri Division of the Kerry Group and SIPTU made an agreement on the manner of working and payment of milk collection drivers, and set out the payment formula for full time drivers with a route. The 'gallonage' payment' was based on a pence per gallon principle.
In 1994, the claimant was employed as a seasonal relief driver. In addition to his basic payment for every day he worked he also received the 'gallonage' payment for every gallon he drew relevant to the full time driver he was substituting for at any given time. During the winters of 1997,1998 and 1999, the claimant carried out some safety forklift training for the company and was paid accordingly. He is now a full time driver for the Company.
During 2001 Kerry Agri and SIPTU began discussion on the rationalisation of milk collection and delivery and eventually reached agreement under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. A number of side issues arose and a Monitoring Committee was set up to deal with these. A pragmatic solution was reached and agreed to by the Union. However, the claimant refused to accept the agreement and sought a special deal for himself.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 21st of May, 2002. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of December, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd of March, 2004.
3. 1. The Company failed to pay the claimant in accordance with established agreements and as agreed with the Transport Manager.
2. The claimant was paid a shortfall for the years 2000-2001, but claims that a shortfall during the years 1996 - 1999 is still due to him.
4. 1. The Company claim that the claimant was paid everything he was entitled to for the work performed by him during his period of employment.
2. The Transport Manager did not have the authority to conclude an agreement with the claimant regarding payments.
In the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the proposal made by the Industrial Relations Officer at conciliation represents a fair compromise which should be accepted. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company should offer and the claimant should accept a payment of €1,700 in full and final settlement of his claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th March, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.