LCR22661

PARTIES:

1.Terms of New Pay Agreement.

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 jointly referred to the Labour Court on the 27 May 2022 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place in a regional setting in Galway on the 18 October 2022. The following is the recommendation of the Court:




RECOMMENDATION:

The issues in dispute between the parties are as follows 1) the failure of the Employer to engage with the craft unions in respect of pay increases for their members and their insistence that a pay deal negotiated with another union should be applied unilaterally to their grades and 2) the value of the pay increases on offer and the duration of the pay deal.

It is the Unions submission that they objected to being excluded from pay negotiations and they were seeking to have their own set of negotiations. They referenced letters of 14^thFebruary 2018; 14^thMarch 2018 in which they requested a meeting with the Employer to discuss that year’s pay claim. They wrote again on 4^thMay 2021 asking that their local representative be included in any pay offer and that there be consultation with the Unions. A further letter was sent on 31^stJanuary 2022 where both unions set out their proposal in respect of pay increases as follows.

• 2% basic pay increase for 2021

  2.75% basic pay increase plus a €500 tax free voucher for 2022

  2.75% basic pay increase plus €500 tax free voucher for 2023

  Negotiations to recommence between Connect and Unite and management in quarter 4 of 2023 in terms of a further pay agreement.

The Unions in their submissions to the Court stated that in the course of discussions with the Employer, under the auspices of the WRC, they had attempted to resolve the dispute by amending their claim to a 3 year pay deal equating to 7.5%. However, the Employer rejected that position, and the dispute was then referred to the Labour Court.

At the hearing it was the Unions position that they are reverting to their original claim and that their proposal of 7.5% over three years is no longer on the able. While the Unions originally indicated that they only found out about the other Union pay agreement in January 2022 and that they had not balloted their members on what they perceived to be another union deal. The Unions during the hearing clarified that they had been aware that pay negotiations were ongoing and that a pay offer had been rejected in September 2021. They also confirmed that they had balloted their members in January 2022 on the pay offer and it was only after their members rejected that offer that they had tabled their own pay claim.

The Union submitted that they are now seeking to have their original pay claim conceded in full by the Employer.

The Employer submitted that it has always been the practice that they negotiated with the other Union who represented about 350 general operatives and that the outcome of those negotiations are then applied to the members of these two unions who represent 12 members in total.

Prior to the letter of January 2022, the other Unions had not indicated that they wanted to negotiate separately and or be included in the negotiations. Nor had they submitted any pay claims.

In 2015 and 2018 they had accepted the pay deals that had been negotiated with the other Unions. In relation to the 2018 letters referenced earlier, the Employers file shows that the Unions by letter of October 2018 accepted the pay deal. While the employer accepts that they could have been more proactive in terms of responding to correspondence received the Unions only lodged their pay claim in January 2022 after they had rejected the pay deal on offer.

The Employer is now aware that they want to be involved in the pay negotiations and will facilitate that going forward. The Employers initially proposed a pay agreement of 8% over 48 months which was rejected by all the workers in September 2021. Following further discussions under the auspices of the WRC the following proposal was put to all workers

2% with effect from 1^stJanuary 2021

2.5% with effect from 1^stJanuary 2022

2.75% with effect from 1^stJanuary 2023

2.5% with effect from 1^stJanuary 2024 with the agreement expiring on 31/12//2024

This proposal was accepted by the majority of workers but rejected by the craft workers represented by Connect and Unite.

The €500 vouchers that Unite and Connect are seeking for 2022 and 2023 are equivalent to an additional 1.25% for each year on what the Employer was offering and from the Employer’s perspective they are not in a position to concede the Unions claim.

Discussion.

The Court notes that the Employer has committed to engage with the craft unions in respect of future pay agreements in the same manner they engage with the other Union.

In respect of the pay element of the dispute the Court notes the Union’s stated position that they are now reverting to their original complaint. It would appear to the Court that it is highly likely that in those circumstances, the Employer would adopt a similar approach. This means there is a significant gap between the positions of the parties and in those circumstances the Court does not believe that it can make a definitive recommendation that would likely to be acceptable to both parties.

Having considered the submissions both written and oral the Court believes that the only recommendation that it can make is that the parties give consideration to reinstating the positions they put forward at conciliation immediately prior to the referral to the Court i.e., Union claim for 7.5% over three years, Employers offer of 9.75% over 4 years.

If the parties were to reach that point it would significantly reduce the differences between them. The two issues that would remain are whether the pay deal would be for three or four years and if three years then the differential of .25% between what the Union are claiming, and the Employer is offering. The Court believes that those difference would be capable of being resolved by local negotiation or with the assistance of the WRC if required.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
SL	______________________
26 October 2022	Deputy Chairman