FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CAREY GLASS (REPRESENTED BY IBEC) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Pay Increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union in relation to the Union's claim for a pay increase on behalf of approximately 340 of its members at the Company's plant in Nenagh, Co Tipperary. It is the Union's contention that its members have not received a pay increase for a period in excess of eight years. Furthermore, the Union maintains that the Company has in recent years experienced a turnaround and is in a financial position to concede the pay claim. The Employer rejects the Union's pay claim, arguing that a pay increase of this nature would undoubtedly affect the competitiveness and future financial position of the Company. The Company counter-proposed a bonus payment scheme in lieu of the pay increase sought by the Union, however this was rejected by the Union.The 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 12th July, 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th November, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union contends that the Workers have not received an increase in pay in eight years.
2. The Union rejected the proposals put forward by the Employer on the basis that its members would not benefit equally, if at all, from the Employer's proposals.
3. The Union is of the view that the Employer has the financial capacity to concede its claim.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union initially sought a pay increase at a time where the Company had not returned to the position it maintained prior to the economic downturn.
2. The Employer asserts that any increase in pay would have to be derived by means of savings made within the Company. Furthermore, the Employer maintains that the current fall in the Sterling rate has affected its business significantly.
3. The Employer is not in a financial position to concede the Union's pay claim as it currently stands.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union, submitted on 15thJuly 2015, for an increase in pay of 5% over 2 years.
Ibec on behalf of the employer outlined for the Court the financial difficulties facing the Company, particularly in light of the BREXIT outcome and the fall in sterling. In order to meet the Union’s claim it submitted a number of proposals, which had been rejected by the Union.
The Court was given details of its most recent proposal, this was outlined in the Company’s submission.
Having considered the position of both sides the Court recommends that the Company’s proposal should be accepted in full and final settlement with the following amendments. Therefore the Court recommends:-
- (a)Wage increase
2% increase in basic pay only, effective from 1stNovember 2016 until 31stOctober 2017
- (b)Voucher
The Company will make a once off voucher payment in recognition of the duration of the pay claim and the contribution of staff to date. This payment is without precedent and will be paid in three parts: one third to be paid in December 2016; 40% to be paid in June 2017 and the balance to be paid in September 2017.
| Service | Payment value | Total payment value of (a) & (b) | Total voucher value as a % of average basic |
| 1-5 years | €200 | €270 | 1.32% |
| 5 – 10 years | €400 | €470 | 2.3% |
| 10 years or more | €550 | €620 | 3% |
(c)Operational Review
It is agreed between the parties that the company will engage in an operational review between January and June 2017, under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission is required. This review will consider:-- •Skills payments/blocks
•Productivity
•Health & Safety
•Quality
•Training & Development
•Organisational Culture & Values.
- •Skills payments/blocks
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
23rd November 2016______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.