FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY CHARLEVILLE (INGREDIENTS) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Company change programme
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a change programme. Management has proposed changes in manning levels and work practices which the Union does not accept. The parties are also in dispute in relation to the application of a pay increase which the Union claim is due since October 2011. The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 4th November 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7th January 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 Management has put forward proposals for significant changes to work practices and manning levels within the organisation which the Union does not accept. In addition outstanding vacancies in line with previous agreements remain unfilled. The Union is seeking the implementation of previous agreements and the retrospective application of the 6% pay increase due for payment since October 2011.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Company requires agreement on and implementation of its change programme in return for a pay increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered carefully the submissions of the parties and the points made at the hearing. The issues before the Court are wide ranging but the Court is clear that both parties are agreeable to an engagement designed to achieve agreement in relation to pay matters and in relation to appropriate change.
The Court is not satisfied that the engagements of the parties to date have succeeded in refining the issues between them or indeed of securing agreement on matters of fact. The Court believes that this matter can best be progressed by open engagement designed to explore without restriction the potential to find agreement on the issue of the Union side pay claim and the company side proposals to agree change on the site.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties re-engage with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission in a process designed to:
•Explore without prejudice the detail of any change proposal put forward by the company in order to achieve mutual understanding of any such proposal
•Explore the potential for agreement with regard to any element of the proposals tabled by the company
•Explore the potential to make a pay agreement to apply in all the circumstances including the capacity of the parties to find agreement on change.
The parties should complete this process of engagement by 18thMarch 2016 at which time any unresolved matters can be referred back to the Court for a definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
25th January 2016______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.