FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CPM IRELAND LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY PENINSULA BUSINESS SERVICES (IRELAND)) - 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 relates to a claim by the Union for a 10% increase in pay to cover the period July 2016 to June 2019. The Company said that it has a fixed price contract for a four-year period July 2015 to June 2019 and that it does not have the ability to pay an increase.
- 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 5 December 2017 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17 January 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The company were aware of the necessity to engage with their workforce on an annual wage increase when they agreed a 2.5% increase in July 2015.
2. The Workers have fully co-operated with the introduction of all new technology, systems and processes.
3. Since 2011, there has been only one adjustment to the rate of pay of the Workers.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 2015 the company gave a 2.5% increase in base pay, which had been agreed by the client in the contract negotiations and finalisation period for the duration 2015-2019.
2. The company does not have the ability to pay an increase as they are in a fixed pricing model with the client.
3. The fixed margin on the contract has reduced as Insurance costs have risen.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Court notes the contention of the company that it operates in a fixed cost contract running over a four-year period. The Court notes also that, since 2011, there has been only one adjustment to the rate of pay of the members of the Trade Union and that the company proposes that no further increase should occur until at least mid-2019.
The Court has given due weight to the circumstances of the company and the risks and pressures attaching thereto. The Court has also however given consideration to the position of the Trade Union insofar as submissions are made for the application of a pay increase in the context of the pay history of the company since 2011.
The Court notes that the pay increase agreed in 2015 carried no time parameter. The Court notes also that no claim for a further pay increase was served upon the company until October / November 2016 and that the detail of that claim was not clarified and mutually understood until the hearing of the Court.
In all of the circumstances the Court concludes that it is fair and reasonable that a pay adjustment should take place but that the adjustment should be reflective of the circumstances of the company and its ability to absorb the costs of that increase.
The Court therefore recommends the application of pay increases as follows:
2% with effect from 1stJuly 2017
And
2% with effect from 1stJuly 2018.
Agreement to expire on 31stJune 2019.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CR______________________
23 January, 2018Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.