INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
S6(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001
BAYFIELD SUPPLIES LTD
- AND -
MANDATE TRADE UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu
1. Request by a Trade Union or excepted body for a determination in relation to Labour Court Recommendation No. LCR18666.
2. A Recommendation, LCR 18666 issued in this case on the 10th August, 2006. On the 7th November, 2006 the Union applied to the Court for the issuing of a Determination in accordance with Section 6(1) of the Act. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th December 2006. The following is the Court's Determination:-
On 28th July 2006 the Court investigated a trade dispute between MANDATE Trade Union and Bayfield Supplies Limited pursuant to Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended (the Act). On 10th August 2006 the Court issued Recommendation LCR 18666 setting out the basis upon which the dispute should be resolved. By letter received by the Court on 10th November 2006 MANDATE requested the Court to make a determination pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Act. The Company opposed the application on the basis that the Recommendation had been based on incomplete information. In advancing that argument the Company submitted that it had failed to fully appreciate the nature of the case which it was expected to meet at the original hearing and in consequence it did not provide adequate information in support of its case.
Having heard the parties the Court is satisfied that the information now relied upon by the employer in opposing the Union's application was, in fact, presented to it at the original hearing, albeit in an undocumented and less particularised form. The Court is further satisfied that this information was fully considered by it in formulating the Recommendation at issue. The Court is further satisfied that the dispute which is the subject of Recommendation LCR 18666 has not been resolved. In these circumstances the Court considers it appropriate to make a determination in the same terms as the said Recommendation. Accordingly, the Court determines as follows:-
An incremental pay scale should be introduced as follows:-
|Year||Rate per hour|
Sunday / Public Holiday Premium.
The Company should pay a premium of time-plus-one-half in respect of Sunday working. This premium should also apply in respect of working on Public Holidays, in addition to statutory entitlements.
The Court determines that the Company introduce a sick pay scheme providing for four weeks' sick leave per year at full pay less social welfare. All sick leave should be covered by a medical certificate. The scheme should apply to all employees who have completed their probationary period. The scheme should not operate in respect of the first 3 days of any illness.
The Court determines that a bonus equal to one weeks' gross pay at the employee's normal weekly rate be paid at Christmas. Where hours vary (as may be the case with part-time employees) the normal weekly rate should be calculated by reference to the employees' average earnings for the time worked in the preceding 13 weeks.
The Court determines that the Employer provides employees with pay slips in the form required by the Payment of Wages Act, 1991.
Health and Safety.
The Court determines that the Employer complies fully with all statutory requirements relating to safety, health and welfare at work.
Save where otherwise appears these determinations should be implemented within one month of the date of issue.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
9th January, 2007______________________
Enquiries concerning this Determination should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.