FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CCL LABELS (REPRESENTED BY ARTHUR COX SOLICITORS) - AND - A WORKER & OTHERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Connolly Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Payment increase.
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 3 March 2020 in accordance with Section 20 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on 11 June 2020 in a virtual Court room.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking a pay increase of 5% for 2019 to compensate for the rise in the cost of living.
2. The Union is seeking a 17.5% shift allowance for Double Day shifts to align with other companies within the industry.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer maintains that the Dublin site has considerably high pay rates at between 30%-100% higher than other locations in Europe.
2. The Employer has stated that the Companies Double Day shift allowance has never been based on a percentage of salary, but rather on a fixed monetary amount.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matters before the Court was brought under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concern the Union’s claims regarding a pay increase for 2019 and payment of a 17.5% shift allowance for Double Day shift.
The Court notes that the dispute relates to collective issues involving members of the Union in the employment. The Court is of the view that it is inappropriate for these matters to be referred under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 Act. Section 20(1) of the 1969 Act was never intended to deal with collective disputes of this nature in employments in which collective bargaining takes place.The Court notes that the Company has a long-standing relationship with the Union where both parties have engaged in collective bargaining arrangements and have recently engaged in discussions on the pay claim, with the assistance of the Conciliation Service of the WRC.
In all the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the parties should re-engage, if necessary, with the assistance of the WRC. If final agreement cannot be reached, in accordance with normal procedure, the parties may jointly request the WRC to refer any outstanding matters to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, for investigation and recommendation.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
HM______________________
30.06.20Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Heather Murray, Court Secretary.