SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
- AND -
(REPRESENTED BY UNITE)
Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Ms Tanham
1. Diageo Site Allowance.
2. The issue centres on the Union's claim on behalf of its members for a daily Diageo site allowance equal to one hours pay per worker. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 24 April 2019, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15 August, 2019.
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes that the parties have recently concluded a two-year national sectoral agreement which provides for a pay increase of 2.7% with effect from 1stSeptember 2019 and a further 2.7% with effect from 1stSeptember 2020. This agreement will be applied to the workers encompassed by the claim before the Court.
The claim before the Court is for a site allowance which would amount to a 12.5% increase to apply in addition to the recently agreed two year pay agreement.
The claim is based on two factors which the Trade Union side has put before the Court.
In the first instance the Trade Union claims that the location of the work site warrants an element of the claimed site allowance. The Trade Union contends that the nature of travel time paid in the sector is such that, as a result of a collective agreement in place since 2011, the first hour of travel time is included on the workers’ rate of pay. Consequently, because the workers concerned in this claim are located within four kilometres of the GPO, no additional travel time is payable to them. The Trade Union submits that this is a disadvantage affecting the workers encompassed in the claim when considered against workers who are located more than four kilometres from the GPO.
Secondly, the Trade Union claims that the workers encompassed by the claim have expectations placed upon them which go beyond what would normally be asked of such a group of workers and their peers on other company projects. The Trade Union cites six aspects of the work of the workers to support this contention.
The employer submits that any concession of the Trade Union claim would have significant site and company-wide consequences. The employer submits that the issue of travel time in the sector is the subject of an existing collective agreement and a separate sector wide claim from the Trade Union. The employer rejects the proposition that the demands or expectations placed upon the workers located at the particular site exceed that which normally be placed upon workers in other sites where the employer operates.
The Court has particular regard to the recently concluded national pay agreement which will have effect for these workers with effect from the 1stSeptember 2019. The Court can find no basis to recommend concession of the Trade Union claim for a 12.5% pay increase in the form of a site allowance.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23 August 2019Chairman
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.