FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROSDERRA MEATS, JAMESTOWN (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms O'Donnell Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay Claim.
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 25 October 2017 in accordance with Section 26(10 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 21 March 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. No pay increase has been applied since 2008.
2. The workers are low paid workers and believe that a modest pay increase is long overdue without needing to be self-financing.
3. The Union is claiming retrospection of any pay to March 2017 and the pay increase should be in line with the WRC proposal from August 2017.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. A pay increase without any element of self-financing would be detrimental to the business.
2. The Company has worked consistently throughout the economic recession to maintain employment levels and succeeded in avoiding pay cuts to basic pay or to standard productivity bonus.
3. Whatever is agreed must be in line with the Company's overall strategy to grow to meet customer requirements but also to maintain competitiveness and grow employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute concerns a pay claim by SIPTU on behalf of General operatives based in the production area of Rosderra Meats. Following engagement under the auspices of the WRC a proposal recommended for acceptance by both parties was balloted on and rejected by the SIPTU members.
The workers in this case have not received a pay increase since 2008. It is the Unions position that the Employer is a successful company and can afford to pay an increase without linking the increase to productivity. The main reason the previous proposals were rejected was because they were linked to productivity around breaks and other issues which were not acceptable to the workers. The last proposal from the Employer had dropped some of the productivity requirements but was only backdated to September 2017 and therefore was not acceptable to the workers. The Union are seeking pay increases with no productivity requirement attached.
While the Employer is part of a wider Company each plant operates, as a totally separate profit centre. There are a number of legacy issues that the Employer wishes to remove which they believe could lead to the pay increases on offer being self-financing. The Employers strategy is to grow to meet customer requirements but also to maintain competitiveness and grow employment in the area and throughout the group. It is the Employers case that the last proposal put forward by the Employer was a reasonable proposal in all of the circumstances.
The Court having studied the submissions of both parties and listened carefully to the oral submissions made on the day recommends;
- 2.5% pay increase backdated to March 2017.
2% pay increase from September 2018.
2% pay increase from September 2019.
5 minute reduction in breaks through reduction by 5 minutes of the lunch break.
5 minute wash up allowance currently in place to remain.
€150.00 One4all voucher to be paid to all staff on acceptance of this proposal.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Louise O'Donnell
11 April 2018______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.