FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY INGREDIENTS LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Various Issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between Kerry Ingredients and SIPTU. There were many issues between the parties which were previously agreed or in the process of local level discussions. The main issues before the Court concern a) basic pay rate increase, b) pay claim for Laboratory Technicians and c) Policy for those who become permanently ill.
The Union is seeking an increase in the basic rate of pay for workers on the basis of their efforts in assisting the profitability of the Company over many years. In relation to the Company's offer with regard to the ITESS Scheme, the Union is of the view that the benefits are inadequate and unclear. It is seeking that management improve its offer in this regard. The Union is also seeking an increase in pay rates for members employed in the Laboratory, claiming that management have unilaterally applied increases of 10% to some and not to others.
Management's position is that it has already applied significant pay increases for increased productivity and also implements wage increases negotiated at national level. It further contends that increases beyond those already implemented are cost increasing and precluded under national wage agreements. The Company further contends that the benefits under the ITESS scheme are generous. In relation to the claim for an increase for laboratory staff, management claim that the IPC carried out a report and found no validity in the Union's claim.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 3rd September 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th November, 2008 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Union's claim for an increase in the basic pay rate is justified on the basis of the long term loyalty and efforts of the workers in bringing the Company to such a level of profitability.
2 The benefits in the Company's Proposal for those becoming permanently ill are unclear and inadequate. Management should increase its offer in relation to such cases and provide adequate support to the workers.
3 Management recently awarded 10% increases to some laboratory staff and nothing to others. It is reasonable that the increases be applied to all laboratory staff to restore differentials and equilibrium in the Company. It is unreasonable to refuse some pay increases on the basis of national wage agreements and apply increases to others outside of agreed structures.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company has applied wage increases in excess of national wage agreements. It is operating in an extremely competitive environment with continuing cost increases and cannot sustain further increases.
2 The Company has put forward excellent proposals in relation to those becoming permanently ill.
The scheme is a sector leading initiative which provides Occupational nurse andhealth facility and G.P. service, etc. It is making every effort to accommodate hardship cases as they occur.
3 An IPC report concluded there was no merit in the claim for an increase in pay for laboratory staff. The increase referred to by the Union concerns a new grade that was introduced on an interim basis.
RECOMMENDATION:
While a range of issues have formally been referred to the Court it is clear that, in reality, there are three key issues in contention between the parties. They are:
- A general claim for an increase in pay;
- A specific pay claim for Laboratory Technicians
- A claim for a compensatory package for workers who are forced to retire early due to ill health.
It is clear to the Court that the failure of the parties to dispose of these issues has hindered progress on resolving the other industrial relations issues which were the subject of intensive negotiations at conciliation. Those negotiations resulted in firm proposals which, if implemented, should finally resolve all outstanding issues between the parties and open the way for a substantial improvement in the general state of industrial relations within the employment.
Against that background the Court has carefully considered the submissions of the parties in an endeavour to find a basis upon which finality can be brought to the key issues identified above.
With respect to the increases in pay claimed by the Union, the Employer has pointed out that they are cost-increasing claims and are thus precluded by the stabilisation clause of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016. For its part the Union submitted that the increases claimed are justified by reference to past and ongoing productivity on the part of the workforce.
The Court has consistently held that it will be guided in its recommendation by the terms of Social Partnership Agreements negotiated between employer and Trade Unions at national level. In this instance the pay claims made by the Union are clearly precluded by the current and previous agreements. In that regard it has consistently been held that past productivity or cooperation with ongoing change does not provide a basis for pay claims in excess of those provided for by National Agreements.
In these circumstances the Court cannot recommend concession of the Unions claims for increases in pay.
With regard to the claim for a compensatory scheme for those who suffer permanent ill health the Court is of the view that the offer made by the Employer is fair and reasonable and should be accepted.
Other issues:
The Court recommends that on acceptance of this Recommendation the parties should reengage in an intensive process, at conciliation if necessary, with a view to resolving all other outstanding issues.
If, following a period of two months final agreement has not been reached, outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
4th December 2008______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.