LCR23077

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Pay - Income Continuance

BACKGROUND:

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 16th July 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th November 2024.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Union argues that in paying Brinny the amount they did the Company has shown that they can afford the increase.
2. The Union says that their members in Ballydine would argue that they work in a more hazardous environment Compared to their fellow workers in Brinny with exposure to increasingly hazardous solvents, enzymes, high potency API’s, carcinogens, mutagens etc.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Company argues that they are two separate sites on two different pay scales.
2. The Union rejected the company offer on pay outright and did not present any reasonable alternative positions for consideration and remained steadfast in their ambition to attain an unreasonable, unrealistic, and extraordinary pay deal.

RECOMMENDATION:

The dispute before the Court relates to a new pay deal to replace the pay deal that expired on the 31st December 2023.  The Union put forward a claim for an increase of 22.8% over three years and also a change to the existing income continuance plan in respect of staff who receive the state widow’s pension. The Employer proposed a pay increase of 9.25% over the same period of time but stated that the proposed change to the income continuance was not feasible. Following conciliation under the auspices of the WRC the Union amended their claim to 21.25% over three years, and the Employer moved to 10.25% over three years.

 At the commencement of this Labour Court hearing, the Court noting the extent of the gap between the parties expressed concern as to whether or not it could be of assistance to the parties. The Court took a short break for the parties to consider their respective positions.

When the hearing resumed the Union indicated that they were looking for the same increase as MSD Brinny of 15.75% over three years. The Employer said they were in a position to move from 10.25% but not by much and not to the value of the MSD Brinny agreement.  The Employer stated that they were not in a position to do anything in respect of the income continuance as the scheme providers dictated the terms of the policy and any change could have a knock-on effect for other categories.

 The Court then heard the parties’ submissions The Union submitted that the Employer could afford to pay the increase they are seeking as evidenced by the fact that it was paid to Workers in MSD Brinny. The Union also pointed to a Labour Court recommendation in 2022 covering the period 2021 to December 2023 which had recommended the same increases for this cohort of Workers as had been paid to the Workers in   MSD Brinny. 

The Employer submitted that although MSD Brinny is a sister company they do not share common terms and conditions of employment and pay rates. They also operate in different sectors of the market. It was the Employer’s submission that a company like Bosch and Laumb was a more relevant comparator and that they had recently done a deal for 11.7% over three years. While the Labour Court Recommendation the Union are relying on awarded the same monetary values for 2021 to 2023, they did not link the two companies and this cohort of Workers as part of that recommendation received an AVC contribution to the pension fund of €500 euro per person which did not apply to the sister company.   

 The Court having carefully considered the submissions both written and oral recommends the following increases.

From 1st January 2024        5.5%

From 1st January 2025       4.5 %

From 1st January 2026      3.5% and the agreement to expire on the 31st December 2026.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
CC	______________________
2nd December 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.