FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EDENDERRY POWER LTD (EPL) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay Claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members in relation to the Union's claim for a 3.5% pay increase and the right to collective bargaining on pay matters. The dispute could not be resolved at local level andthe Union referred the issue to the Labour Court, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 20th July, 2017.
The Union agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union asserts that while the Employer has previously conceded a 2% pay increase, it is retrospectively seeking the remaining 1.5% increase in order to answer its pay claim in its totality.
2. The Union maintains that the Employer has incorrectly graded its members and as a result they are prohibited from collective bargaining on pay issues.
3. The Union is seeking collective bargaining rights for all of its members on all matters
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer contends that it has previously dealt with the retrospective element of the Union's pay claim.
2. The Employer further contends that it concedes the Union's claim for collective bargaining rights on pay, however this must be based on certain pre-requisite conditions as outlined by the Employer.
RECOMMENDATION:
This matter comes before the Court as a referral from SIPTU in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial relations Act, 1969.
The Court has considered in detail the written and oral submissions of the parties and recommends as follows:
Pay
The Court notes the offer made by the company with regard to 2017 and the payments made in 2016. The Court recommends that the parties accept these arrangements as being adequate to address the issues of retrospection involved in this claim and the matter of pay in 2017. The parties should, in good time, engage to address pay matters in 2018.
Collective Bargaining.
The Court notes that the Respondent company is a constituent part of a wider group of companies. The Court notes that this group and the Trade Unions representing workers employed therein have a long history of mutually satisfactory arrangements for collective bargaining.
The Court is reluctant to interfere in the arrangements made for collective bargaining in a situation, as is the case in the Respondent company, where collective bargaining is accepted and supported by the Trade Union and the employer.
The Court notes that the parties are disagreed as regards the detail of arrangements to apply to a specified group of 10 workers. The Court recommends that the arrangements to apply to these workers should be aligned with arrangements in place in the wider group for workers of a similar grade or function.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
1 August 2017______________________
LSChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.