LCR22429

1.Pay
2. Conversion of Pay to Salary Format.
3. Total Rewards Package.

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 12April 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 25 June 2021.

UNION ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union request that basic pay, gallonage payments and sampling payments are combined into one salary payment and that this salary payment is used to reflect the contributions to the Defined Contribution Pension Scheme.

2. The Union is seeking an 8.5% increase over 3 years to mirror the pay agreement on the Kerry Listowel site.

3. The Union seeks an additional 5 days’ annual leave be granted to members to reflect the hours they work (48 hours per week over a 52-week period), and that the workers should be eligible for the health insurance contribution/ cover that is awarded to other staff on site.

EMPLOYER ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer states that the Union did not advise the Company as to what they were seeking in pay and refused to accept the Company offer or bring it to their members.

2. The Employer states there are 3,500 hourly paid employees within the company. Any increase in annual leave entitlements and health insurance would have a serious impact on the costs of the business.

3. The Employer contends that the comparators used by the Union are not equitable.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Court notes that the parties indicated their willingness at the hearing to engage further regarding the claims for pay increases and annual leave. The Court recommends that if these further discussions do not result in agreement by end September, the parties should, at that point, avail of the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission. The parties may, of course, avail of this assistance at any time in the meantime if there is agreement on the need to do so.

The Court notes that the disagreement between the parties as to whether the workers concerned are salaried or hourly staff has given rise to conflicting expectations for both parties. The Court believes that it is clear that the workers concerned are hourly paid staff who are engaged on annualised hours’ contracts. Such arrangements do not make them salaried staff and their terms and conditions reflect that accordingly.

The Court does not recommend concession of the healthcare package sought by the Union.

The claim for the incorporation of two allowances into basic remuneration has significant potential knock-on implications in respect of the Company pension arrangements, including considerable potential extra cost to the Employer. Therefore, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Tom Geraghty
EMcN	______________________
7 July 2021	Deputy Chairman