FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BILFINGER LTD (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES (IRELAND) LTD) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Pay Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a pay claim. 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 4th April, 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st May, 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1. The Union wrote to the Union seeking a 5% pay increase for all members as they have not had a pay increase since 2007.
2. A proposal for a 2% increase was rejected by 100% of members as they felt it was insufficient.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1. The Company is not in a position to grant pay increases to staff which would result in rates in excess of the industry rate if it is to remain competitive.
2. The 2% increase that was proposed at conciliation is a reasonable increase in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The Court notes that extensive engagement has taken place between the parties and that proposals for settlement of the within dispute, recommended by both parties for acceptance, were rejected by the Trade Union.
The persons represented before the Court fall into two categories. On the one hand there are approximately four cleaning staff whose rate of pay has, without dispute between the parties, traditionally and consistently been set by reference to the rates set as a minimum by Employment Regulation Orders from time to time. That method of pay determination has, in December 2016, resulted in an increase in the rate paid to the four staff concerned. A further increase is due, the Court understands, in late 2017 and a further increase again in 2018.
Secondly, there are approximately 28 staff whose rates of pay are not set by reference to an Employment Regulation Order and no increase has been applied to their rate of pay for a number of years.
The Court is reluctant to disturb the long standing arrangements for pay determination in the company and does not make any recommendation as regards cleaning staff who, as a result of the implementation of the relevant Employment Regulation Order, have received a pay increase in December 2016 and are due to receive further increases in 2017 and 2018.
As regards the 28 staff in various roles whose pay determination mechanism is not related to an Employment Regulation Order, the Court recommends that the Company should, with effect from 1stJanuary 2017, apply an increase of 2.5% to rates of pay of such staff. The Court further recommends that the parties should engage in good time in 2017 with a view to agreeing a pay position to apply for 2018.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
8th June 2017______________________
JKChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jason Kennedy, Court Secretary.