LCR22505

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 13(9), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969

PARTIES :

DIAGEO IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

A WORKER
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1.Appeal of Adjudication Officer Decision No(s). ADJ-00031723 CA-00042197-001.

BACKGROUND:

2.This dispute concerns the Worker's dispute concerning the application of an agreement on the point of retirement. This dispute was referred to the Workplace Relations Commissioner for investigation and recommendation. On 12th January 2021 the Adjudication Officer issued the following Recommendation: -

"I do not uphold the complainant's claim for payment of a further 4% pensionable increase. However, for the reasons set out above I recommend he be paid €2,500 in final settlement of the matter."

On 9 September 2021, the Employee appealed the Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 13(9) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.

A Labour Court hearing took place in a virtual setting on 18 November 2021.

DECISION:

This is an appeal by SIPTU of an Adjudication Officer’s Recommendation ADJ-00031723 on behalf of a Worker employed by Diageo Ireland.

The dispute relates to the interpretation of a collective agreement,Plan 2000,that provided for certain painters, who did not attain Craft Grade ‘C’ status during their employment, to receive the pension benefit applicable to the Craft Grade ‘C’ on retirement.

The Adjudication Officer did not uphold the worker’s claim that he was entitled to a further increase in his pensionable pay on retirement and recommended a payment of €2,500 in full and final settlement of the matter.

The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of both parties.

The background to this dispute arises from a company restructuring in 1996 when certain promotional positions for painters were eliminated. At the time it was acknowledged that the role of painter was unlikely to change sufficiently into the future to meet the criteria for Craft Grade ‘C’ status. As a result, an agreement was reached that provided as follows:

“Under Plan 2000 Painters have been unable to achieve craft ‘C’ rate. However, in recognition of the painter’s role in agreeing Plan 2000, it is agreed that in this instant the remaining Painters (named) will receive the pension benefit of ‘C’ rate on retirement”.

The Worker in this case remained at Craft ‘B’ grade and pay level throughout his employment and is due to retire in August 2022. He is the sole remaining painter employed at the St. James’s Gate site.

The dispute before the Court is complicated by the fact that in 2012 the Craft Group of Workers joined the company’s Total Reward Framework (TRF) which provided for performance-related pay and annual bonuses. The Worker in this case was the only worker who did not join the Total Reward Framework (TRF) and instead continued to receive agreed annual pay increases.

As craft rates of pay were not updated after 2010, the Employer applied notional pay increases to establish an equivalent rate of pay for the ‘C’ Craft grades in today’s terms. It is agreed that the Worker’s current rate of pay exceeds this rate.

In essence, SIPTU contend that thePlan 2000Agreement entitles the Worker to a 4% increase of pensionable pay on retirement, as this is the pay differential that existed between ‘B’ and ‘C’ Craft Grades and the Worker is entitled to the benefit of a ‘C’ grade on retirement.

The Employer rejects this interpretation and contends that the intent of the agreement was to provide a painter with the benefit of a ‘C’ grade pension on retirement, if he did not receive it in his own right before then.

They rely on an email sent from HR to payroll which states the Worker is ‘to receive the pension benefit of C rate (4% on basic pay) if he does not receive it in his own right in retirement.’ As the Worker’s rate of pay already exceeds the rate of pay for ‘C’ Grade, the employer says that he is precluded from receiving a 4% increase on retirement.

In response to questions from the Court, both parties agreed that the intent of thePlan 2000wording was to ensure that no disadvantage arose for painters who did not achieve a Craft Grade ‘C’ status during their employment.

It is not disputed by the parties that when notionally pay increases are applied to the former Craft Grade rates, the Worker’s current rate of pay exceeds the notional rate of pay for a ‘C’ grade role.

In the Court’ view, the Worker has through pay increases and other awards achieved an equivalent rate of pay of a ‘C’ grade worker. On this basis, the Court is of the view that he has not been disadvantaged by not achieving a Craft ‘C’ grade status during his employment.

Furthermore, to award a 4% increase to uphold a differential that formerly existed between two grades would result in the Worker receiving a pension that exceeds the notional rate of pay for a ‘C’ grade role and the pension benefit for a ‘C’ grade role on retirement.

The Adjudicator held that the central pillar of the 2000 agreement was an equitable one to ensure that the worker was not disadvantaged but awarded a payment of €2,500 in full and final settlement of the matter in acknowledgement that certain ambiguity around the agreement wording had created an element of expectation for the Worker. The Employer did not appeal that recommendation.

In the circumstances of this case, the Court does not uphold the Worker’s claim for a 4% increase in pensionable pay. The Court recommends that he is paid €2,500 in full and final settlement of the matter.

The Court finds that the worker’s appeal fails, and the recommendation of the Adjudication Officer is upheld accordingly.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary.