LCR23016

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Pay claim.

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 29th May 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 11th July 2024.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. All of the members in the butter maker role have received the butter maker rate of pay. This includes four people introduced to the role since 2011.

 2. The 2011 agreement relied on by the company was a local agreement reached between the company and the red-circled members. This agreement has never been implemented and the Union argues has no standing as all newly appointed butter makers appointed since 2011 have received the butter maker’s rate of pay.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

 1. An agreement was reached between the parties in 2011 to red circle the butter maker rate of pay with all new employees (butter maker and butter packer operators) to be paid the appropriate factory rate.

 2. The historical basis for an increased rate of pay is no longer applicable. Historically the butter maker operative role was considered a more specialist role, when butter making was viewed as being craft like. The butter making process has become increasingly automated making the rate of pay impossible to justify and creating pay inequalities on site.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The matter before the Court arises from a 2011 agreement concluded between the trade union and the employer. That agreement clearly provides for extinguishment of the butter maker rate and the ‘red-circling’ of a number of named employees with all future recruits to the butter making department being employed on a lower ‘factory’ rate.

The trade union contends that the 2011 agreement is not a valid agreement while the employer contends that it is. Both parties agree that a number of workers were appointed to the departments since 2011 on the higher butter maker rate. The parties dispute the basis for the decision to pay that rate to these workers.

The 2011 agreement was not signed by the paid official of the trade union but was signed by a local representative who might have been a shop steward at the time. It became clear at the hearing that it was reasonably commonplace in the employment for the trade union to acknowledge its assent to an agreement by having that agreement signed by a lay representative rather than a paid official of the trade union.

It is not for the Court to comment on the conduct of its affairs in the employment by the trade union. However, it is clear that the nature of the document drawn up to confirm the agreement is not unusual in the employment. In those circumstances, the Court must conclude that the agreement is a valid collective agreement between the employer and the trade union.

The Court is not in a position to determine the basis for the employer’s subsequent agreement to pay a higher rate than the ‘factory rate’ to a number of employees appointed to department after 2011. The employer submitted that the decision to apply this rate was a response to a threat of some form of non-co-operation by workers in the department, whereas the trade union submits that no such threat existed at any material time.

The Court concludes that the decision to pay the higher rate to a number of individuals after 2011 cannot, as a result of the disputation as regards the circumstances of that decision, be relied upon as a basis for any conclusion in relation to the validity of the collective agreement reached by the parties in 2011. No submission has been made by either party that any agreement has been reached at any time to cancel the 2011 agreement.

Having regard to all of the circumstances therefore, the Court recommends that

(a) Both parties accept the validity of the 2011 agreement which extinguished the butter maker rate of pay for all future appointees to the role, and

(b) that an agreed independent expert should be requested to examine the work of the butter maker role and to compare that work with the work of a random selection of four other roles anywhere on the site which are paid at the ‘factory rate’. The expert to report to the parties as to whether the work of the butter maker is significantly more skilled than the other roles examined to the degree that a higher rate of pay is warranted in the case of butter makers. Should the expert conclude that the work is significantly more skilled to the degree that a higher rate of pay than the ‘factory rate’ should be applied to new appointees in the future, the parties should engage to finalise an agreement to address that matter.

In making this Recommendation the Court also recommends that if the parties fail to agree on the identity of a relevant expert to carry out the recommended examination, the Court can be asked jointly by the parties to nominate a relevant person.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
17th July 2024	Chairman

NOTE

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