LCR21182

FULL RECOMMENDATION

CD/15/348

RECOMMENDATIONNO.LCR21182

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

UCB SHANNON
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION

DIVISION :

Chairman: Mr Foley
Employer Member: Mr Marie
Worker Member: Mr Shanahan

SUBJECT:
1. Proposed pay increases & changes to specific leave without agreement.

BACKGROUND:

2. This dispute relates to (a) a proposed 6.9% pay increase over four years and (b) changes to certain leave arrangements.

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 6th November 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd March 2016.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3.(a) Pay

1. The pay increases proposed are below industry norms and the Agreement proposed period is too long.

(b) Leave

2. The Union first became aware of the changes to policies at a general meeting on site in November 2013, where they were advised that these policies had been put up on the internal system without either consultation or agreement.

3. These changes resulted in a reduction of one day for the death of a grandparent, uncle, aunt, brother-in-law, sister-in-law from two days in the old policy to one day in the new policy.

4. The Union is seeking to have the policies other than those changed through legislation restored on the basis that both parties would then engage without prejudice in local discussions with a view to advancing these through agreement.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4.(a) Pay

1 The proposed increase is reasonable and has been accepted by other groups in the employment.

(b) Leave

2. In April 2013, the Company introduced a new computerised SAP system for tracking and managing, leave, absence and attendances e.g. overtime, on-call, call-out etc. Prior to this all leave absence and attendance was processed manually.

3. The Company increased bereavement leave for spouse and grandchild. It introduced study and exam leave and extended sick pay benefit. The Company contends that on balance, employees are much better off as a result of the leave changes introduced.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matter before the Court relates to (a) a proposed agreement providing for increases in pay and (b) a dispute as regards changes made to specific leave arrangements without consultation and agreement.

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:

Pay

The Company had, in 2015, proposed a 48 month pay agreement providing for pay increases at 16 month intervals of 2.3% each commencing on 1^stMarch 2015. The Union rejected the company proposal and contended to the Court that the annual increases involved were below what the Union saw as industry norms and that the period of the agreement was too great. The Union informed the Court that the previous agreement with the Company which expired on 28^thMarch 2015 was for a period of 39 months. The Company advised the Court that the agreement it had proposed to the Union side in 2015 was put in place for other groups on site who make up 61% of the workforce.

The Court recommends that the parties conclude a pay agreement commencing on 1^stMarch 2015 and concluding on 31^stMay 2018 providing for pay increases as follows:

1^stMarch 2015 – 2.1%

1^stApril 2016 – 2.1%

1^stMay 2017 -2.1%

Agreement to conclude on 31^stMay 2018.

Leave

The Parties set out to the Court the detail of special leave arrangements applying in the Company prior to April 2013. Those arrangements provided additional leave for events such as bereavement, study, moving house and others. The Company amended those arrangements in April 2013 providing additional leave in some cases and reducing or removing the provision of leave in other cases.

The Company contended to the Court that the leave concerned was not a term or condition of employment and had been amended in order to better reflect the needs of the workforce. The Union contended that the leave arrangements in place prior to 2013 were an element of workers’ terms and conditions of employment and as such no change should have occurred without engagement and consultation.

The Court supports engagement and consultation as part of the process of bringing about change in the workplace. The Court notes that the special leave arrangements in place prior to 2013 were not the subject of a negotiated agreement between the parties but nevertheless were a feature of the arrangements in place in the employment. The Court accepts that the implementation of change in this case should have been preceded by engagement. The Court notes that the parties are in agreement that any proposal in the future to make changes to leave arrangements will be the subject of appropriate consultation and engagement.

The Court can see no practical mechanism whereby the arrangements put in place in 2013 can be eliminated at this point in order to facilitate engagement. Any restoration of pre-2013 arrangements at this time carries the likely possibility that persons experiencing one of the events provided for will suffer a detriment as a result.

The Court therefore recommends that the parties engage immediately to review special leave arrangements and to make an agreement as regards the arrangements to apply into the future. That engagement should be completed within one month of the date of issue of this recommendation. In the meantime and without prejudice to either party, the arrangements currently applying should continue to apply pending any new agreement.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

Kevin Foley
CR______________________
16th March, 2016.Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.