FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PFIZER NUTRITIONALS IRELAND LIMITED TRADING AS WYETH NUTRITIONALS IRELAND - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. 2% pay claim for 2011.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which is based in Askeaton Co. Limerick and employs 620 staff introduced a "multimillion euro in thirty months" competitiveness/cost saving strategy which absorbed the 2% pay increase that was due in January 2011 for the Workers based in the facility, no other facility within the group was affected.
The case involves a 2% pay claim which was due to the Workers on 1st January, 2011 was lodged by the Union for pay increases in line with pay awards given to others within the Pfizer group. The Company claim that if conceded the pay increase would have a significant negative impact on competitiveness of the facility and a detrimental effect on the Company's ability to meet financial commitments.
The dispute could not be 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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 30th November, 2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th April, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Askeaton Workers are the only group of Workers singled out by the Company to endure this pay freeze. There are a number other ways by which the necessary savings can be achieved and should be considered by Management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pay strategy in Askeaton during 2010 and 2011 was consistent with comparator companies within the industry.
2. Alternative cost saving strategies operate in other facilities around the country and the Company is not in a position to concede this pay claim. The Company is prepared to engage in further discussions as long as they are focused on continued competitiveness of the facility.
RECOMMENDATION:
This case before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for application of a 2% increase in pay from 1stJanuary 2011. At the Labour Relations Commission the Company in response proposed to address the claim in the context of future arrangements on pay and productivity.
Having explored the position of both sides the Court is of the view that further discussions are required and accordingly recommends to both parties that joint discussions should commence, facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission, to discuss the Union’s claim for a 2% increase in pay from 1stJanuary 2011 and the Company’s proposals on pay and productivity for the future.
Both sides indicated to the Court that they are committed to full engagement to bring a resolution to all the issues involved.
The Court recommends that this process should be completed by not later than 19thJuly 2013.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
14th June, 2013______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.