FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : PAT O' DONNELL & COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY FEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of three Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 30 April 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22 June 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking an 11.5% cost of living pay increase over the four- year period 2016 to 2019.
2. The Union is seeking this pay increase without conditions and before it is willing to engage with the Company on other outstanding matters.
3. The Union members are a very dedicated staff and have always been very co-operative with the Company.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is offering a 6.5% cost of living pay increase over the three- year period 2016 to 2018.
2. Any pay increases will have to include co-operation with normal on-going change and in addition with regard to the introduction of the new IT system ('Navision'), the Company’s Health and Safety requirements and the implementation of the Employee Handbook.
3. The workers are currently on a decent and competitive rate of pay that is 7.8% higher than the General Construction Sectoral Employment Order.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the dispute
This dispute concerns a pay claim on behalf of twenty-four workers (‘the Workers’) employed by Pat O’Donnell & Company (‘the Company’). One of the Workers concerned is employed as truck driver; the other twenty-three are employed as service technicians.
The Workers were subject to a 3.5% decrease in wages in 2010. The Union submits that it subsequently transpired that no decrease had been imposed on non-unionised staff at that time. Nevertheless, two subsequent pay increases (totalling 3.5%) granted by the Company in 2015 were applied to all employees in the Company.
Accordingly, the Union is seeking the following pay increases, without conditions and before it is willing to engage with the Company on other outstanding matters:
•3.5% backdated to 1 January 2016;•2.5% backdated to 1 January 2017;
•2.5% backdated to 1 January 2018; and
•3% with effect from 1 January 2019.
The Company submits that the service technicians received pay increases totalling approximately 18% between 2006 and 2008. The average pay increase awarded to other employees in the business at that time was approximately 10%. It further submits that the 3.5% wage decrease applied to the Workers in 2010 was agreed in order to ensure that the number of service technician positions made redundant at the time could be contained at ten (rather than fourteen).
The Company has made a number of counter-offers to the Union since discussions about a wage increase for the Workers began in late 2015. The Company’s most recent offer, tabled at Conciliation, was as follows:
•2% with effect from 1 January 2016;•2% with effect from 1 January 2017; and
•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2018, for the period up until 31 December 2018.
This proposal from the Company was conditional on getting agreement from the Union for co-operation with ‘normal ongoing change’ generally and, in particular, in relation to the following matters:
•The introduction and utilisation of a new IT system (‘Navision’);•Health and Safety; and
•Revision of the Employee Handbook.
Recommendation
The Court recommends that the Workers should receive the following pay increases, subject to their agreeing to co-operate with all elements of the change programme proposed by the Company and as outlined above:
•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2016;•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2017;
•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2018;
•2.5% with effect from 1 January 2019.
In the course of the hearing, it became apparent to the Court that there are a number of aspects of the Company’s ‘normal ongoing change’ agenda in respect of which both Parties would benefit from further detailed engagement. The Court recommends that such engagement should be progressed (if necessary with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission) with a view to reaching agreement on all outstanding details within three months of the date of this Recommendation. In default of the Parties reaching final agreement on any of the aforementioned matters within the stated timeframe, they may refer those outstanding issues back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
MK______________________
5 July 2018Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Mary Kehoe, Court Secretary.