FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOLLISTER BALLINA (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay Dispute
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a pay claim. 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 6 November 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 6 May 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Employees have contributed significantly through higher levels of productivity to the company profits and the expansion of the business.
2. The Company is seeking changes to contracts of employment of new entrants from 2015 and to move all employees from weekly pay to fortnightly pay.
3. Employees have lost gain share payments which existed up to 2008.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The employer submits that since the global financial crisis they paid basic pay increases each year up to 2015 with the exception of 2010.
2. The company is under ongoing cost pressures.
3. With ongoing improvement projects the company must contain labour costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis: -
•The parties should conclude a two year agreement in respect of 2015 and 2016.
•A 2% pay increase in pay should apply from 1stMarch 2015 and a further 2% increase should apply from 1stMarch 2016. The agreement should conclude on 28thFebruary 2017
•The union should agree to the introduction of fortnightly pay for new recruits and it should agree to encourage and support a change to fortnightly pay for current employees
•The union should agree to the company’s proposal on the separation of the two manufacturing plants for the purposes of lay-offs amongst temporary staff
•The Company’s proposal on Maternity Leave should be accepted
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
LS______________________
18 May 2016Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Louise Shally, Court Secretary.