FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUTRICIA INFANT NUTRITION LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. A claim for pay parity for the Workers in the Macroom facility with those in Danone's Wexford facility.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim for pay parity for the Workers in the Macroom facility with those in the Wexford facility. Following discussions at the WRC and with a Mediator, proposals were put to the Union for a 23% increase in pay. This was rejected by the Union.
The Union said it was seeking pay parity with maintenance personnel at the Company’s Wexford facility.
The Employer said the claim was achievable but that the terms and conditions pertaining to the Wexford facility agreement have to be applied to the Macroom facility.
- 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 15th July 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rdNovember 2016.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are very obvious differences that exist between the two facilities.
2. The Macroom facility is a processing plant whilst the Wexford facility is a canning plant. The work patterns also differ between the two facilities and the number and category of maintenance personnel are also different.
3. It is unacceptable to the Union that the Company is cherry-picking parts of the Wexford agreement and the implications that this would have on the members' terms and conditions of employment.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is part of a world-wide group and the Macroom facility must compare with other manufacturing facilities in lower-cost economies.
2. Since the economic downturn no worker at the facility has lost their job, seen their pay cut, was laid off nor was placed on short-time working.
3. The Union should accept the generous proposal on offer for parity with the Wexford facility in settlement of all outstanding matters of pay.
RECOMMENDATION:
The within dispute concerns a pay claim in respect of 9 Craft Workers employed at the Respondent’s facility in Macroom, Co. Cork. The most recent pay agreement that applied to this group of Workers expired in December 2014.
The Union is seeking a pay increase of 23% effective from 1 January 2015 to bring its members’ pay rates in Macroom into line with those of their colleagues (also TEEU members) in the Respondent’s Wexford facility. The Union is also seeking a retrospective pay adjustment for those of its Macroom-based members who have been employed during the period June 2006 and 31 December. (The so-called ‘Wexford Agreement’ took effect from June 2006.)
The Union and the Respondent have engaged in local discussions, attended the WRC Conciliation Service and engaged with an independent Mediator in an attempt to negotiate a new pay deal. In October, 2016, the Mediator tabled a comprehensive proposal to the Parties based on a four year deal. This proposal was rejected by the Workers. Nevertheless, having considered the Parties’ detailed written and verbal submissions, the Court is of the view that the Union and the Respondent have made considerable progress towards resolving this dispute. In light of this, the Court recommends that the Parties resume local-level discussions with a view to achieving an agreed settlement between themselves no later than 31 January 2017. In the event, that the dispute has not been resolved by that date, the Court will issue a substantive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
29th November, 2016.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.