FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CALOR GAS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE MANDATE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim by a group of Unions Union for a pay increase for it's members.
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 7th June 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the18th July 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Unions were seekinga 2.5% increase for members on market rate of pay and 2% for members above market rate of pay. The group of Unions was, in principle, willing to agree to a one, two, or three year deal at these percentage rates.
The Unions highlighted the fact that it's members had been subject to a pay freeze from 2012 to 2014. In addition to this pay freeze, the Unions contended that it's members had consistently co-operated when requested to adopt more flexible working terms and productivity measures in recent years.
The Union also cited LCR21199 BOC Gases Ireland Limited and SIPTU and UNITE in support of their claim, a case they believed to be relating to a realistic comparator to Calor Gas as an example of current pay trends in the industry.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company stated that it's sole product is Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) and it is in competition with all other sources of energy. The Company also stated that the LPG cylinder market has been in decline for many years meaning the control of costs was a critical factor when considering the continued success of the Company.
The Company cited a bench marking exercise it conducted in 2014 in order to gauge pay levels in the Company against market rates. This exercise resulted in a new pay agreement in 2014 which saw pay increases for employees of between 2% and 4% for two separate consecutive eighteen month periods.
The Company is now offering pay increases of 2%, 2.25% and 2.5% for employees at market rate of pay over three fourteen month periods and 1.5%, 1.75% and 2% for employees above market rate of pay in the same three periods.
In it's conclusion the Company pointed to it's status as a "premium employer". This status, the Company informed the Court, means there exists a continuous target for pay rates in the Company to be "...up to 10% above market norm for all positions."
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
Taking all matters into consideration the Court recommends the following schedule of pay increases:
Date Above Median Market Rate At Median Market Rate
1 April 2017 2% 2.5%
1 June 2018 2% 2.5%
1 August 2019 2% 2.5%
1 April 2017 2% 2.5%
1 June 2018 2% 2.5%
1 August 2019 2% 2.5%
Agreement expires on 30 September 2020.
This recommendation is in full and final settlement of all matters before the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
JD______________________
20 July 17Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.