FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABP NENAGH - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a pay claim. The Union is seeking a 6% increase in pay retrospective to April 2013. Management's position is that due to its difficult trading conditions it cannot sustain the cost of 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 24th March 2014 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 16th September 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The Company has previously applied pay increases, awarded under National Wage Agreements, however, no pay increases have been applied to the workers since 2008. In addition the workers have endured continued increases in the cost of living which has greatly reduced the level of disposable income available to them. In the circumstances the Union contends that the Company should apply the pay increases as sought.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Company cannot sustain the cost of the Unions claim. The sector is still affected by the Horsemeat scandal of last year and the general consumption of beef has also declined. Management has offered to buy out certain terms and conditions which would result in lump sum payments to the workers but cannot agree to a pay increase at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the Operatives employed by the Company for payment of 6% over a period of 24 months, commencing from April 2013.
In response to the claim the Company stated that due to its difficult trading conditions it could not sustain a pay increase, however, it made an offer to buy out “minutes” accumulated by employees resulting from a reduction in working hours following implementation of the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) in 1987, and an offer to Abattoir employees of a once off payment in exchange for the removal of a short afternoon break.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court recommends that the Company should increase the Claimants’ pay by 2% retrospectively from 1stJuly 2014 for twelve months and by a further 2% increase in pay from 1stJuly 2015 for twelve months.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th October 2014______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.