FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KOSTAL (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay Increase
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 8 September 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 31 January 2018.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union contended that the claim for the pay increase is supported by the financial analysis conducted by both the Company Financial Controller and the Union's own researcher. Furthermore, the Union stated it's members believe that the Company is in a financially strong position evident from the recent investment in building upgrades on the site. The Union indicated they were open to either a four percent increase per annum for three years or a three percent increase in pay for three years with a further three percent to be added in pension contributions over the three year period.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company stated that they are 'very concerned' about the level of pay increase being sought. Were the Court minded to award the Union's claim, the Company would be incapable of winning new business and sustaining employment levels in the Company. The Company has awarded approximately 6.4% in pay increases since 2014. Referencing theIBEC and ICTU protocol for the Orderly Conduct of Industrial Relations and Local Bargaining in the Private Sector, the Company informed the Court that the challenge of maximising sustainable employment still remains.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a pay claim by the Union on behalf of General Operatives in the Company. The Union submitted a claim for the following:-
- 4% pay increase per year from 1stJanuary 2017 for three years
or
3% pay increase per year from 1stJanuary 2017 for three years, plus similar increases in the employer’s contribution to the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme.
The Company rejected the Union’s claim. It contended that to concede the claim would have a major impact on the Company in terms of its competitiveness and consequent implications for employment levels.
The Company made the following offer:-
- 1% pay increase per year for three years from 2017, plus
0.25% increase in pension contributions for 2017
0.25% increase in pension contributions for 2018
0.50% increase in pension contributions for 2019
Having considered the submission of both parties, the Court recommends the following increase in pay:-
- 2% from 1stJuly 2017
2.5% from 1stJanuary 2018
2.5% from 1stJanuary 2019 to expire on 31stDecember 2019
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
JD______________________
19 February 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.