FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAGEO - AND - GSU SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION CONNECT DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Proposed changes to the Group Pension Scheme.
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 19 September 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 November 2018.
UNIONS ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions want to retain the Guinness Ireland Group Pension Scheme.
2. They are willing to explore all solutions to the retention of the scheme as it is currently constituted.
3. They beleive it is a term and condition of employment of the membership.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot sustain the level of costs and risks in providing future service pension benefits for active members of the scheme.
2. The failure to make progress in a consultation process with the Unions needs to be addressed.
3. The Company are committed to addressing this issue in a fair and reasonable manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. The matters outlined to the Court are significant and the Court believes that it is in the interest of both parties to find sustainable agreement on the structure and nature of pension provision as it affects the members of the Guinness Ireland Group Pension Scheme (GIGPS).
The company submitted that a time-bound facilitated engagement should take place in an effort to find an agreed solution to the matter before the Court. The Court was given to understand at its hearing that the Trade Unions, without prejudice to their position as stated, were agreeable to such a proposition.
The Court accepts that such an engagement will require dedicated periods of intense engagement across an accepted timeframe. The Court is satisfied that the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) is in a position to facilitate such an engagement and to make itself available in the manner foreseen.
In all of those circumstances the Court recommends that the parties should engage the services of the WRC to facilitate an engagement across a four-month timeframe to achieve an agreed resolution. That process should involve an initial engagement at principal level with the WRC to draw up an agreed framework for engagement. In the event that any matters remain disagreed between the parties at the end of the four-month period the matters may be referred to the Court for a final and definitive recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
16 November 2018______________________
MNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.