FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ABP IRELAND (RATHKEALE) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Hall |
1. Pay claim in the abbatoir.
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 12 May 2017, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 September 2017.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
1. The resolution of this dispute rests in an agreement being reached in payment of a 10% pay increase for the years 2015, 2016, 2017.
2. There has been no pay increase for the group of Workers in question since the collapse of the Social Partnership structures and agreements in 2009.
3. LCR20845, LCR21031 and LCR21470 are relevant Recommendations which the Court should consider in its deliberations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
1. After a series of meetings with Union representatives in early 2017 the Company offered the following in an effort to resolve the dispute:
a). A buyout of the Workers "Time Bank" for €1250 (€1000 in cash plus €250 in vouchers).
b). A Pay increase of 2% for each of the years 2016, 2017 and 2018.
c.) The removal of two five minute unpaid breaks.
2. The "Time Bank" practice has become outdated and has been bought out in all other plants.
3. The Company refutes the Union's contention that employees did not receive pay increases in the period 2008-2015 as a significant renegotiation of the Company's piece rate system in 2010 saw Workers compensated for this change.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issues in dispute are the Union’s claims in the abbatoir for a 10% cost of living increase in pay retrospective to 2015 and management’s requirement that any pay increase be linked to productivity. In the case of these workers the productivity required is the removal of the “Time Bank” and the elimination of morning and afternoon five-minute breaks.
The Union is seeking the increase based on the fact that the company is profitable and they have been subjected to a pay freeze since 2009. They do not believe productivity should be a feature of the agreement.
The Employer is prepared to agree a pay increase subject to productivity in return. The Time Bank referred to above is minutes accumulated by employees resulting from a reduction in working hours following implementation of the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) in 1987. The Time Bank generates a payment of approximately €500 per person once a year and is normally paid at Christmas. It is the employer’s position that staff no longer work 40 hours due to the modernisation of operating processes within the plant. Regardless of whether they work the 40 hours or not the company has continued to operate the Time Bank for the staff covered by that agreement. In all other ABP plants the company has bought out the time bank.
The two five-minute breaks (with additional time for gowning up and down) were introduced a number of years ago. Rathkeale remains the only plant in the group that has these breaks. These are unpaid breaks and the Employer contends that the removal of these breaks will allow the employees finish work approximately 15-20 minutes earlier each evening or earn more as they are paid per piece.
The Employer had tabled the following proposal:-
2% increase January 2016
2% increase January 2017
2% increase January 2018
A once-off lump sum of €1,250 euro to buy out the Time Bank
The Union’s position is that they are prepared to consider the pay increases but without any conditions attached. They were not prepared to consider the buyout of the “Time bank” nor the removal of the two breaks. It is their contention that the breaks are required as their members work on a non- stop production line.
In the course of the hearing it was established that the annual value of the Time bank was approximately 1.6% of gross salary.
The Court having read the submissions of the parties and listened to the oral submissions on the day recommends that the following applies to the Union members covered by this claim:-
- 1.5% increase on gross salary to be paid with effect from 1stJanuary 2015;
2% increase on gross salary to be paid with effect from 1stJanuary 2016;
2% increase on gross salary to be paid with effect from 1stJanuary 2017;
2% increase on gross salary to be paid with effect from 1stJanuary 2018;
In relation to the two five-minute breaks the Court notes the employer’s contention that the workers will either benefit from going home earlier each day or have the capacity to increase their earnings as the breaks in question are unpaid. While the Union indicated that there may be some Health and Safety issues no specific issues were identified. The Court recommend’s the elimination of the two five-minute breaks with effect from the acceptance of this recommendation and that any health and safety concerns that arise be addressed in the normal manner.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
05 October 2017______________________
JDLouise O'Donnell
Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.