FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRUSS GBMH (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay and related issues.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a pay claim and related issues. This 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 25th June, 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th October, 2015.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers' flexibility and embracement of change have contributed to the ongoing success of the Company.
2 The Company is part of a profitable multi-national group which can afford to concede this claim.
3 The Workers' demands are in line with those conceded locally.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company operates in a very competitive international marketplace.
2 The Company's terms and conditions of employment compare favourably with those elsewhere both in the sector and the region.
3. The Company believes that its proposals are prudent and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background
- 1. The Union is seeking the following improvements to their members’ terms and conditions:
- •A pay increase of 5% for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015;
•A pay increase of 5% for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016;
•The establishment of a Hospital Saturday Fund 100% funded by the Employer;
•Improvements to the Company’s Long-Term Service Awards Scheme.
3. The Company acknowledges the workers’ contribution to date with normal ongoing change in the business. The Company’s position, however, is that labour costs at its Sligo plant are the second highest across the Bruss group of businesses and that there has been a drop in sales year on year from August 2014 to August 2015.
4. The Company emphasised that it has continued, nevertheless, to award pay increases at the Sligo plant throughout the period of recession.
5. The Company’s counterproposal is for a three-year pay deal at 1.5% per annum. It would be prepared to administer a Hospital Saturday Fund but not contribute to the cost of it. Also, the Company sees no justification for the Union’s claim for improvement to the Long-Term Service Awards Scheme. - •A pay increase of 5% for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015;
Recommendation
Having regard, in particular, to the fact that the Company continued to make pay increases during the recent recessionary period, the Court recommends that the Union and the Company enter into a two-year pay agreement that provides for a 2% increase for the period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015 and a 2% pay increase for the period 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016. The additional elements of the Union’s claims are not upheld.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
20th October, 2015______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.