FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DROMONE ENGINEERING LTD - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay Increases
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of approximately 30 of its members employed by the Company in Dromone, Oldcastle, Co Meath. The dispute relates specifically to the terms of a Company/Union pay agreement. The Union on behalf of its members is seeking enhanced terms on the new pay agreement to cover a three-year period. The Union is further seeking consideration to be given to the fact that its members lost out on pay increases for a 3 month period between January and April, 2015. The Employer maintains that the proposals put forward to the Union will allow it to continue to operate competitively. Any increase in the pay agreement will result in products being outsourced with increased labour costs and pressure on the Company.
The dispute was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. The Company put forward a pay proposal to the Union however this was rejected and agreement could not be reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 19th July, 2018, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th October, 2018.The following is the Recommendation of the Court:
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 30 Production Operatives for a pay increase. The Union sought a 3% increase each year for three years effective from 1stJanuary 2018 and a factor to take account of three months lost out on a pay increase from the previous wage agreement.
At the Workplace Relations Commission, the Industrial Relations Officer put forward a proposal for acceptance by both parties. It proposed an increase of 2.25% in year one, 2% in year two and 2% in year three. The Industrial Relations Officer’s proposal was put to ballot and rejected by the members of the Union.
The Company stated that in order to cover the cost of the proposed pay increase it will need to outsource product, some of which it has already done, to its supplier in China. Management stated that in light of the pressure on labour costs the Company will continue to increase investment in low cost manufacturing locations going forward.
Having considered the position of both parties the Court hereby recommends that the following increases should be paid: -
- 2.25% from 1stApril 2018 for twelve months
2% from 1stApril 2019 for nine months
2% from 1stJanuary 2020 for twelve months
The Court recommends these increase in full and final settlement of all matters, including the three months “legacy issue”.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
1st November 2018______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.