FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PREMIER PERICLASE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay claim & business practice improvements.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a pay claim by the Union of 1%, 4%, 4% and 5% for the years 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 respectively. The Employer tabled a range of business practice improvements that would be required before pay-increases could be considered. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 23rd May 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th July 2014.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are four areas on which the parties could not reach agreement on. They are:
- •The levels of percentage pay increase along with retrospective pay.
•Extending the cover provided by the out of hours on call system.
•Scheduling of the morning tea break
•Changes to pay frequency.
2. The Company is a very successful and profitable part of the RHI group.
3. Management has not moved in any of the areas where workable and real solutions were offered and their pay offer does not meet the inflationary increases in recent years.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In May 2012, the Company met with all 3 Unions collectively to discuss implementing Business Improvements and to start discussions on a pay increase. The Unions informed the Company they would not participate in any discussions about business improvements but that they would be seeking a pay increase.
2. In the absence of an agreement with the Unions, the Company concluded an agreement with the remaining non-union workers.
3. In April 2013 the Company met with the Unions again to discuss the revised improvement agenda. To date the parties have been unable to reach agreement despite the fact that discussions first started in May 2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court, on the basis of the exchanges that took place in the course of the hearing, takes the view that the parties would benefit from a further engagement on the outstanding issues at the LRC. The Court accordingly recommends that the parties return to the LRC with a view to reaching agreement on all matters within 12 weeks of the date of this recommendation. Matters outstanding at that time may be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
7th August, 2014.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.