FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : TENNANT & RUTTLE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay claim and additional annual leave 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 4 May 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 June 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a 2% pay increase from 1 January 2018.
2. The Union says that its members do not get paid an overtime rate for any additional hours worked.
3. The Union is also seeking an extra day's annual leave for the workers involved in this claim to bring their members in line with other staff in the Company who have 21 days.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is offering a 1% increase for "legacy" staff and a 2% increase for "modern" staff on the basis that SIPTU protected its members in 2014 from wage reductions/outsourcing by Red Circling and now wishes to undo the Red Circling for the benefit of gaining a wage increase.
2. The rate of pay at which staff were Red Circled in 2014 currently stands at a very substantial 46% higher than the accepted market rate which was agreed for new employees.
3. The Company rejects the claim for an extra day's annual leave and says that this differential dates back to February 2007 when it was proposed that employees could accept an increase of one day's holidays in lieu of part of their increase which was due under the National Wage Agreement. This proposal was rejected by SIPTU.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a claim by the Union for a pay increase for eighteen warehouse staff, ten of whom are referred to as “legacy” staff and eight as modern staff. The Union sought a 2% increase on behalf of both categories of staff to take effect from 1stJanuary 2018. It also sought an extra one day’s annual leave for the Claimants involved.
The Company rejected the claim and offered 1% increase for legacy staff and 2% increase for modern staff from the date of acceptance by the Union. It rejected the claim for extra annual leave.
Having considered the position of both parties and taking account of the pay freeze in place since 2016, the Court hereby recommends that the company should offer to pay an increase of 2% to both legacy and modern employees to take effect from 1stJanuary 2018, or a 1.6% increase in pay plus one extra day’s annual leave. The Court recommends that the Union should put this recommendation to the Claimants involved and the majority decision should decide on which of the two options should be accepted.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
2 July 2018______________________
CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.