FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ROSDERRA IRISH MEATS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Hall |
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 the 5th June 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.A Labour Court Hearing took place on the 12th July 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
- The Company have benefitted from pay being frozen from 2009 to present.
- Current pay rates range from €10.80 to €13.37. A basic minimum living wage of €11.90 is needed to provide an acceptable standard of living.
3. The Company is profitable, with turnover of €300 million and has not pleaded inability to pay at any point.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
- Raw material costs have increased significantly in recent years whilst domestic market prices continue to fall due to imports meaning maintaining efficiencies at plant level is vital for Rosderra remaining competitive.
- The Company would be willing to explore other options for employees to enhance their earnings such as an extension/amendment to attendance bonus.
- The Company is seeking to implement several measures to be linked to any potential pay increase including an earlier start time for Slaughter line to begin production and the introduction of an interim "D" payment rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes the history of pay movement in the company and indeed notes pay developments in other sites of the Respondent and across the sector as advised to the Court by the parties. Neither party before the Court has been able to support their position to the Court by reference to pay movement in the industry or in the Respondent company.
The Court is concerned that the parties’ efforts to date to resolve this matter have not taken pragmatic account of what is possible and what is not in terms of securing mutual agreement having regard to the factors underpinning each party’s position.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties should return to the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) to make a fresh attempt to find agreement taking account of the history of pay movement in the Respondent company, the nature of pay movement in the industry generally and the need to achieve a fair and reasonable agreement which reflects the Trade Union side claim for a pay increase and the competitive nature of the sector.
In the event that the parties should fail to find agreement at the WRC within a period of six weeks from the date of this Recommendation the matter should be referred back to the Court for definitive recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
JD______________________
21 August 2018Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.