FULL RECOMMENDATION
PARTIES : KERRY FOODS CARRIGALINE DIVISION :
SUBJECT: 1.This dispute relates to (a) Pay Claim; (b) Annual Leave; (c) Health Insurance; (d) Time & Attendance recording system. The Court notes that the Employer has, in September 2021, put forward an offer for settlement which has yet to be considered by the membership of the Trade Unions. The Employer’s offer can be summarised as follows: 2.5% increase in pay for 2021, 2.5% increase in pay for 2022 Pay agreement to expire on 31stDecember 2022. Increase in annual leave entitlement for workers on an allocation of 21 days to a new allocation of 23 days with effect from 2021. Operation of the proposed electronic time and attendance stem with immediate effect. That electronic system to replace an existing paper-based system. Co-operation with normal ongoing change and no further cost increasing claims for the lifetime of the agreement. The Trade Unions submitted to the Court that the Employer’s proposal that members would record their time and attendance electronically was a significant change. Similarly, the Unions submitted that the absence from the offer of the Employer of an agreement to subsidise health insurance was not acceptable. The Trade Unions submitted that, in the location, salaried staff and a number of staff who had been the subject of a transfer of undertaking already enjoyed a subsidy of health insurance. The Employer submitted that this work location was the only location within the organisation, other than a transport operation where workers operate mobile transport, where workers did not record their working time and attendance electronically. The Employer submitted that the workers currently and historically record their attendance on a paper-based system which requires significant resources to maintain, and which is not sustainable. The Employer contended that any concession of a subsidy for health insurance for hourly paid staff would have a potential “knock-on” effect across all of the organisation where thousands of hourly paid staff are employed. The Employer submitted that it was unreasonable to compare the arrangements of salaried staff with hourly paid staff having regard to their differing contracts and terms of employment including as regards access to overtime, shift pay and various allowances. Similarly, a comparison with staff whose terms of employment were the subject of ‘red circling’ following transfer is, in the Employer’s submission, unreasonable. The Court does not believe that the replacement of a paper-based time and attendance recording system with an electronic system can be regarded as a significant change in this employment. No submission has been made which would suggest that the introduction of the electronic system will have any negative impact on earnings, security of employment or any term or condition of the employment of the members of the Trade Unions. In those circumstances, the Court does not believe it to be unreasonable that, in the context of the conclusion of a significant two-year agreement on pay and annual leave, co-operation with the implementation of the electronic system should be forthcoming. The Court recommends therefore that the September 2021 offer of the Employer as set out above should be accepted. In addition, the Court recommends that the matter of a claim for subsidisation of health insurance should not be addressed at this time but could, if the Trade Unions see fit, be engaged upon at a later date. In addition, the Court recommends that, should any concession of a claim of this nature be conceded by the Employer at another location for hourly paid staff, the same concession should be applied to the members of the Trade Unions in this location. The Court so recommends.
NOTE |
