FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONEGAL MEATS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay Increase & Downtime Payments
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a pay increase and downtime payments.
- This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12 June 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1 April 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. A pay increase was sought in 2013 and the company made an offer in 2014 and 2015 which contained a change to the attendance policy. Efforts were made to explain the new policy to employees however the offer was rejected by members.
2. Proposed increases were out of line with other companies in the Industry
3. The payment of a realistic downtime rate is justified for time spent by operatives in the piece rate system, which is unproductive time and which they have no control over. The union further submits that they have sought a copy of the company downtime agreement however they have not received this from the company.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The company submitted that it is not in a position to absorb increased labour costs given the low margin nature of the industry. Any increase in labour costs would impact the economic sustainability and competitiveness of the company.
2. An increase in pay above what the company offered in conciliation would damage reinvestment which would hinder the company’s ability to expand and prevent the creation of further employment in the region. The company submit that a UK exit from the EU could lead to increased costs of doing business
3. The company have implemented changes to reduce downtime by co-ordinating changeovers during break times where feasible to minimise disruption.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues in dispute between the parties concern the Union’s claim for a pay increase and payment for downtime for workers in the Boning Hall. The Union stated that the workers in the Boning Hall are not compensated for downtime (non-productive time which occurs due to specification changes) and sought the average hourly rate of earnings for time lost.
The Company put forward proposals to increase pay, which included an amendment to the attendance policy in order to address high absenteeism levels. This was rejected by the Union.
The Company submitted that to award a pay increase, above that already offered, would add significant costs to the Company, would erode its ability to award enhanced rates for skill levels, would hinder its ability to create further employment and given the low margin nature of the beef industry would impact on its competitiveness. In relation to the “downtime” claim the Company submitted that a certain amount of down time had always been the custom and practice in the industry. It stated that changeovers were necessary in order to comply with food safety legislation.
The Court notes that improvements have been made in the amount of downtime occurring by co-ordinating them with break times and by the adoption of the 6 Sigma methodologies since January 2015. Having considered the submissions made by both parties, the Court does not concede the Union’s claim however, it recommends that the sharing of information with workers to further reduce the level of downtime should continue.
The Court recommends the following increases in pay:
1½ % effective from 1stJanuary 2014
1½ % effective from 1stJanuary 2015
2% effective from 1stJanuary 2016
2% effective from 1stJanuary 2017 for twelve months.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
LS______________________
15 April 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.