LCR22300

1.Pay increase for 2019 and future years.

BACKGROUND:

2.The Union engaged in discussions with management at a local level on an increase in pay. The Union sought an increase in line with ICTU's recommendation for the private sector.
Management made an offer of 2.25% for 12 months only.

On 11 July 2020, the Worker, referred this dispute to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 4 November 2020.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

The Company's offer was comprehensively rejected by our membership.

The Union have remained in process and acted in good faith throughout this period. The Company have acted in bad faith by failing to remain within the

process despite both parties committing at conciliation to the matter being referred by WRC to the Labour Court.

The Union had made several proposals at conciliation while management were steadfast in their refusal to alter their offer.

The Company suspended a matching share scheme of significant value to our members and at the same time unilaterally processed the 2.25% increase which was overwhelmingly rejected by the BD Drogheda SIPTU members.

COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:

The Company did not attend the hearing.

RECOMMENDATION:

The matters came before the Court under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns the Union's claim for a multi- year pay agreement. The Employer had proposed a 12 month pay agreement from April 2019 of 2.25 % but this had been overwhelmingly rejected by a ballot of the Union’s members in July 2019. The parties then referred the issue to Conciliation under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC). Initially there was a joint referral to the Court under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969. However, prior to the hearing of that case the Employer withdrew their consent to the joint referral. The Court notes that the Company has a long-standing relationship with the Union where both parties have engaged in collective bargaining arrangements including pay agreements. The Court is at a loss to understand why on this occasion the Employer truncated the normal bargaining process and how they came to the conclusion that this would facilitate the resolution of the dispute.

Normally in circumstances where an issue such as a pay claim comes before the Court under Section 20(1) in an employment where collective bargaining with the Union has been the norm the Court would recommend that the parties return the WRC. The Court does not believe in the circumstances of this case that there is any point in doing that.

The Court notes that the Union’s claim was for 3.4% and that the Employer has paid the 2.25% that was earlier rejected by the Union. It was accepted by the Union that circumstances in general have substantially changed since they lodged their original claim, but it is their submission that 2.25% was below the norm for a 12 month pay deal in the sector. In support of their submission the Union provided figures for wage increases for varying periods of time in what it believed to be comparator employments in the sector. It was not disputed in the course of the hearing that a comparison could not be done on salary increase alone in terms of comparing one Employer with another. The Court noted that a large number of the comparators provided were in the 2.5% range or less for a 12 month pay award in 2019. The Court having considered the submission and the arguments made on the day of the hearing, notes that the Union at Conciliation indicated that they were prepared to engage with the Employer on a number of issues which they felt would be beneficial to both sides. The Employer in a letter to the Court dated 6th October 2020 indicated that they were open to engaging locally with the Union in respect of the financial years 2020 and 2021. The Court notes that both parties have indicated they are prepared to engage and both parties have issues that they want to bring to table. The Court recommends that both parties should engage on that basis. Part of that engagement should be an examination of whether in terms of relevant comparators terms and conditions, the pay award to this group of Workers in the financial year 2019 was out of the step with the norm in the sector.

The Court so Recommends

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
NJ	______________________
18 November 2020	Deputy Chairman