FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WELLMAN INTERNATIONAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. A claim for a pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a pay claim by the Union.
- In November 2014 SIPTU lodged a pay claim for a 3.5%payincreaseto take effectfrom January 2015 anda claim for a further of3.5% increase from January 2016.
Management asked for time to consider the claims. In April 2015 the Company called a meeting of the various Unions in the plant and informed them that it would apply an increase to the value of 3% over three years.
Management told the Court thatthe 7% pay claim was totally unrealistic and that the Company’s overall strategy was to maintain employmentwhich meant that it must confine itself toaffordable pay increases.
- 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 4th April 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th May 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union has at all times followed the correct procedure in this matter and has attempted to enter meaningful discussions with the Company, but on all occasions has been left frustrated by the Company’sfailure to engage meaningfully or at all.
2. The Union has revised its claim from 7% to 5% over two years.
3. The Company’s accounts showed thatit continues to operate profitably.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has consistently treated its employees respectfully maintaining employment without pay cuts or reductions in fringe benefits during the economic recession.
2. Sales volumes havefallenin 2016 and competition from Asian imports hasreachedrecord levelsrising to70% of the EU Marketbyvolume.
3. TheIrish Plantcompetes for investment with other Companies in the Group. Failure to achieve a satisfactory returnon investmentwill reduce or eliminateits abilityto get approval for future projects.
4. The Company has indicated that a 3% increase for the two years 2015 and 2016 is reasonable in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court recommends in the unique circumstances outlined by the parties, that the Company, in full and final settlement of the dispute, increase the offer on pay from 3% for 24 months to 3.5% for 24 months as follows
1 January 2015 +1.5%
1 January 2016 +1.5%
1 July 2016 +0.5%
Agreement to expire on 31 December 2016. The unions should continue to co-operate with normal ongoing change.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
27th May, 2016.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.