FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PEPSICO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute relates to a claim by the Union for a 5.5% pay increase for a twelve-month period from 1 February 2017.
- 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 31 July 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8 November 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Negotiations at local level resulted in an offer by the Company of 2.75% for a twelve-month period. This was rejected by the Union members in a ballot.
2. At conciliation, the Company offered a longer-term deal of three years with a 9% increase in total.
3. The negotiation committee felt that it could not consider this proposal as they had received a very strong mandate from the members at the plant to secure a twelve-month agreement.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has concluded four pay agreements with peer groups in the Little Island and Carrigaline concentrate facilities.
2. The Company has offered 9% over three years. This offer remains on the table with the unpredictability to the Company’s business model of the targeted sugar tax on the Company’s products.
3. PepsiCo has never implemented a pay pause or pay cut despite the economic downturn, and has displayed a most generous and proactive approach to employee relations in all its dealings.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a pay claim by the Union on behalf of General Operatives in the Company’s plant in Little Island, Cork. The Union submitted a claim for a 5.5% increase for twelve months from 1st February 2017.
In response to the Union’s claim, the Company offered to pay 2.75% for one year, this was the subject of a ballot of the Union’s members and was rejected. The Company made a further offer of 2.75%, 3% and 3.25% over three years commencing from 1st February 2017. Agreement was not reached and the Union sought 5.5% and stated that it was mandated to agree a one year deal only.
The Court notes that the Company’s three-year offer has already been accepted by the Union for its Carrigaline and its Food and Flavours plants and has also been accepted by the TEEU for its members in the Little Island plant.
Having considered the position of both parties to the dispute, the Court notes the Company indicated that the new Sugar Tax is likely to have an impact on its business, however, at this point that impact is unknown. In all the circumstances the Court recommends that the three-year deal as outlined above should be accepted by the Union for its members in the Little Island plant which is in line the arrangements accepted by other plants and by other categories within the Little Island plant itself.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CR______________________
24th November, 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.