FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAGEO - ST JAMES'S GATE - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Terms and conditions for new entrants into Craft Grades.
BACKGROUND:
2. 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 11th July 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18 May 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.The Union is committed to introducing revised pay rates for new starters. However the reduced level of pay the Company is proposing is excessive in the extreme.
2.Were the Union to accept the Company’s offer the pay level for new entrants would be significantly below that which applies in the Contract Electrical Industry as a whole.
3. While the Union is prepared to negotiate a revised pay rate for new starters it is not prepared to agree the additional reductions in other employment conditions including pensions, bonuses and total annual hours worked.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company and the Union agreed in 2010 to introduce new terms and conditions for "New Starters". In return the Company introduced a generous bonus scheme that had been pursued by the Unions for many years
2.The terms and conditions of new starters proposed by to the Company represent a very attractive package that will attract significant interest from amongst union members in other employments.
3.The package proposed by the Company is in line with those accepted by other grades in the company. It would not be possible for the Company to treat this group of workers more favourably than others who have already concluded agreements in line with the 2010 commitments they entered into and have no honoured.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the extensive oral and written submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that issues raised by this category that impact on other categories of staff can only be dealt with through discussions in which all affected staff are engaged. Accordingly the Court has confined its recommendation in this case to those issues that can be distinguished as affecting only this category of staff.
The Court notes that under the 2010 Agreement the Union committed to the introduction of revised rates of pay for new starters. Since that time discussions have been ongoing between the parties, without success, to agree the terms of those new rates. The matter has now finally come to the Court for a recommendation in accordance with the Company/Union agreed procedures.
In that context the Court recommends that the Basic rate of pay offered by the Company be increased from €44,650 to €47,342. The Court notes that this adjust will narrow the gap considerably between the current basic rate of pay for this category of staff and that proposed by the Company. The Court also notes that the shift rate of 33.33% will apply to this higher basic bringing again reducing the difference between the value of the current shift premium and that which will apply to new entrants.
The Court recommends this increase in basic pay for new entrants in full and final settlement of the matters before it.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CO'R______________________
06 June 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.