FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GRANT ENGINEERING (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. 1 - Pay Claim 2 - Company Handbook Dispute
BACKGROUND:
2. The parties, having failed to reach agreement at Conciliation, agreed to refer two issues to the Court: (a) a claim for an increase in pay; and (b) implementation of a revision to the Company Handbook. The parties are agreed that both issues are intimately connected: the Union and the Employer have collaborated to agree the text of the revised Handbook, however, the Union’s members, to date, have not, in the absence of an agreement on pay increases, accepted the Union’s recommendation to accept the Handbook.The parties previously negotiated pay deals at a local level. The most recent pay deal agreed between them covered the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015 and provided for an annual increase of 2% per annum. The current Company Handbook has been in place since 2004. The Company and the Union commenced work on a revised text of the Handbook in December 2014. The proposed new Handbook was unsuccessfully put forward for ballot on two occasions in the latter half of 2015. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd December 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd February 2016.
Parties’ Positions
(a) Pay Increase:The Union is seeking a pay increase of 10% over 2 years. In support of its claim, the Union cites the terms of pay deals agreed recently in 5 sample engineering firms. The examples cited range between an agreement that provides for an increase of 4.25% over 2 years, on the one hand, to one that provides, on the other hand, for an increase of 8% over 2 years. The Union, when questioned by the Court in relation to the examples it cited in its submission, accepted that the companies chosen for comparison were not direct competitors of the Respondent Company. The Union indicated that it had been unable to obtain any information in relation to pay increases agreed by any of the Respondent’s direct competitors, either in the Republic or in Northern Ireland. The Union also indicated that the claim submitted was negotiable.
The Company submitted to the Court that it is committed to implementing a two-year pay deal, backdated and effective from 1 July 2015 i.e. the date of expiry of the previous deal in order to “provide security and stability for staff and to assist with financial planning for the business.” The Company had previously offered to make an increase of 1.75% for year 1, plus 1.75% for year 2.
(b) Company Handbook: The Union submitted to the Court that, in its view, the final draft of the proposed revision to the Company Handbook would most likely be acceptable to its members should the issue of pay increases be resolved. The Company, in very similar terms, informed the Court of its belief that the proposed revised Company Handbook would be accepted once the pay increase issue had been settled.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) Pay Increase:The Court recommends the following in this regard to the Parties –
1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016: 2%, and
1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016: 2%, and
1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017: 0.5%
(b) Company Handbook:The Court recommends that, on acceptance of the pay increases recommended above, the Parties should implement the revised Company Handbook.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
10th February 2016______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.