FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DONOGHUE DRINKS COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Marie Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay 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 23 March 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 November 2018.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Since the collapse of the Social Partnership Structures and Agreements in 2009 the members have not had an increase in pay.
2. Case volumes have more than doubled in the last 4 years, with regular shift working now required to meet the production demands. This adds to the justification for an increase in pay after 9 years of a pay freeze.
3. The Union is seeking a pay increase of 10% over a 36 month period.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company wants to increase the rates of pay for its staff and acknowledges that there has been a considerable period where no increases were made. This was due to the difficult financial situation the business encountered following the global financial crisis that started in 2008.
2. The Company argues that an increase of 8% over three years is very fair and reasonable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court is a claim by the Union on behalf of 42 General Operatives for a pay increase. The Union sought a 10% increase over three years effective from 1stJuly 2017. It stated that while the Company had in the past paid the terms of national agreements, there had been no increases in pay since 2009.
On behalf of the Company’s position, Ibec stated that a number of companies in the Group went into receivership in November 2015. An interim Chief Executive/Chief Financial Officer was installed by the financing bank. His primary role was to oversee a restructuring of the business in order to ensure the viability of the Company, thereby securing long term employment for the workforce.
In response to the Union’s claim, on 20thNovember 2017 the Company put forward an offer of 8% pay increase over three years, to expire on 30th June 2020. This was rejected by the Union’s members.
Having considered the oral and written submissions of both parties, the Court recommends that the Company’s offer, as outlined in the letter to the Union, dated 20thNovember 2017, should be amended by the following: -
- 2½% from 1stJuly 2017 until 30thJune 2018
2½% from 1stJuly 2018 until 31stMarch 2019
3% from 1stApril 2019 until 31stDecember 2019
The Court recommends that with the above amended pay increase over a period of 30 months, the terms of the Company’s offer should be accepted by both parties in full and final settlement of the Union’s claim.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
20 November 2018______________________
MNDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.