FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KERRY INGREDIENTS LISTOWEL - AND - 32 CRAFT WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Aclaim for a 5% pay increase for 2015 and a 5% pay increase for 2016.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim by the Union for a 24-month pay agreement with a 5% increase effective from 1stJanuary 2015 and a 5% increase effective from 1stJanuary 2016.
The Union said the non-application of a pay increase to its members for nearly two years is totally unacceptable.
The Employer said any pay claim must be realistic, deliver the platform to maintain and ideally grow the business and ensure competitiveness.
- 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 2nd September 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. In November 2014 the Union formally lodged a claim on the Company for a 5% pay increase in pay effective for 1st January 2015 which was rejected by the Company.
2. In the absence of any real or meaningful engagement the Union felt its only option was to serve a claim that reflected the position adopted by the Union Executive.
3. The Union was aware that a number of other Food / Drink Sector indigenous and multinational employers were in discussions on pay increases over and above the norm in the sector of 2% to 2.8% per annum.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Any deal must allow the Listowel site to remain competitive, not only internally within the Kerry Group, but also with the other competitors in the field of milk processing.
2. Even without a pay deal for 2015 and 2016, the Company already historically exceeds pay deals on a percentage basis compared to its competitors.
3. The Company has already offered and remains committed to paying a 1.5% per annum increase to its employees.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
The Union is seeking a 24-month pay agreement to replace the previous agreement which expired on 31 December 2014. The Union’s claim is for a 5% increase with effect from 1 January 2015 and further increase of 5% with effect from 1 January 2016. The Respondent’s position is that annual pay increases of 5% are unrealistic and would threaten its efforts to remain competitive in a highly volatile market. To concede to the Union’s demands for such a high increase would be an indication that the Respondent is paying craft workers below market guidelines, which it denies. The Respondent also indicated its preference to have certainty about pay increases for 2017 and onwards. It has proposed pay increases of 1.5% per annum.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the following pay increases be applied to the grades in respect of whom the dispute was referred:
•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2015;•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2016;
•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2017;
•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2018.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
CR______________________
16th January, 2017.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.