FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SODEXO IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Foley Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Treacy |
1. Pay
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 17 December 2018 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 26 March 2019.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's ability to pay the claim is not in doubt.
2. The Union submits that the workers have not had a pay increase since 2015.
3. The Union asserts that the Company has cited the current ERO terms as being the only means of getting an increase.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in a position to concede the Union's demand for pay increases in circumstances where the workers are already paid in excess of the industry norm.
2. The Company operates in a competitive sector, with lean profit margins.
3.TheCompany says that this particular client is a maximum price contract which means that the cost associated with any pay increase must be borne by the Company and not the client.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter referred to the Court was identified as a dispute regarding pay on this particular site. It appears that the original claim related to the years 1stSeptember 2016 to 31stAugust 2017 and 1stSeptember 2017 to 31stAugust 2018. The Union clarifies that, given the effluxion of time, the claim now also comprehends the year 1stSeptember 2018 to 31stAugust 2019. The employer set out to the Court that the matter of pay in 2018 / 2019 had not previously been addressed by the parties but also set out that its position in respect of the entire matter comprehended the period up to and including the date of the hearing of the Court.
The Trade Union claim that the last pay agreement in respect of these workers expired on 31stAugust 2015 and claims pay increases for each of the succeeding years.
The employer submitted that it operates a maximum price contract on the site and is unable to concede the Union claim. In any event the employer submitted that the Employment Regulation Order (ERO) for the sector sets out appropriate rates of pay for the industry and the workers concerned are paid in excess of the rates set out in the current ERO. The employer clarified that its position in this regard is a current position and that it may be in a position to negotiate on pay in respect of this group of workers at a point in the future.
The ERO for the cleaning industry incorporates the sector within which these workers are employed and only a small minority of workers in that sector in this employment are paid in excess of the rates set out in the ERO.
The Court notes that the pay of the workers concerned in this claim is in excess of the rates contained in the current ERO. Although neither party was able to clarify the history of pay determination for these workers, the Court considers it reasonable to assume that the rates paid to these workers were established by agreement or at least by agreement of the then employer. The Court also notes that these workers have not received a pay increase since 2015.
The Court cannot endorse the proposition that the rates set out in the ERO are, in operation of the procedures set out in the Industrial Relations Act, 1946, determined by the Joint Labour Committee for the Industry, the Labour Court or the Minister to be the appropriate rates for the industry. The rates set out in the ERO are, in the view of the Joint Labour Committee for the Industry in this instance, the appropriate minimum rates for the industry. The Court cannot import to the Order a meaning that the existence of a minimum rate should inhibit or impede negotiation in respect of pay in particular employments in the industry. The ERO does mean that such negotiations cannot result in agreement on rates which are lower than those contained in the ERO but it does not have a statutory meaning in respect of bargaining on higher rates of pay.
The Court has considered carefully the submission of the employer as regards the competitive nature of the industry and has formulated its Recommendation taking that matter into account.
In all of the circumstances and noting that the matter in dispute is pay, the Court makes the following recommendation to comprehend the entirety of the Union claim. The Court recommends that pay adjustments for this group of workers should be implemented as follows:
- •An increase of 1% with effect from 1stSeptember 2016
•An increase of 1% with effect from 1stSeptember 2017
•An increase of 2% with effect from 1stSeptember 2018.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Foley
CC______________________
10 April 2019Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.