FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES: DUBLIN PORT COMPANY (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Pay Claim 2.The Union state that the fact the company is profitable is due to the commitment and flexibility during the challenging times arising during the Covid pandemic and Brexit.
2. The Employer maintains that a pay claim has a compounding effect on the company's finances and the company is obliged to manage its financial affairs prudently particularly with the economy in such an uncertain state. Therefore it cannot concede to the Unions claim for a 6% pay increase for 2022.
SIPTU submitted that when they lodged their pay claim inflation was about 6% and it has gone higher since then. The Employer is a state-owned company that operates at a substantial profit over recent years. The last pay agreement reached was on foot of a Labour Court recommendation and expired on 31st December 2021. The Union citied three comparators Company A - 7% pay increase agreed for 2022, Company B - 6% agreed for 2022 Company C - 8% pay increase for 2022. The Union accepted that they did not have any details in terms of the general pay and conditions of their named comparators and did not know if there was a productivity element to any of the agreements they were relying on. They also brought to the Courts attention the fact that this Employer had made a pay award of 5.3 % to 35 managers for 2022. The Union submitted that the Court should consider an amount in excess of 6% because of inflation but accepted that their previous pay deals had not been linked to inflation and that they had received payments over and above the rate of inflation when inflation was at a low rate. The Union indicated that at conciliation they had moved from 6% to in and around 5%. Following a short break, the Union said they were prepared to move their position to a pay increase of 4.75% plus an enhancement. The Court pointed out that if they were seeking an enhancement by way of vouchers and were seeking €1,000 euro tax free, then they were in fact looking for more now i.e .6.5% than they had been before the break. The Union did not dispute that but stated that its position is that they are not necessarily saying that it has to be the full amount. The Employer submitted that they had originally put forward an offer of 2.5% for the twelve-month period commencing 1/1/2022. The difficulty for the Employer is that Union claim keeps changing. Originally it was for 4% that changed at conciliation to 6% and it is the Employer’s understanding that the last position put forward by the Union at conciliation was for 4% increase and .75% enhancement a total of 4.75%. This would appear to have changed again today with the Union looking for 4.75% plus an enhancement. While the port is showing a return to the volume of growth previously experienced both Brexit and Covid have impacted on the services that they deliver. The Employer also has to fund a large capital development programme which is required to secure the future of the Port going forward. In respect of the comparators put forward by the Union the Employer is aware that the 6% quoted is actually 2% for three years and not 6% for one. The other two comparators as far as the Employer can establish, have less favourable terms and conditions in respect of the hourly rates of pay and general terms and conditions. The Employer is aware of one similar company where the increase for 2022 is 3% and it is there experienced that the norm in the industry ranges from 2.5 to 3.25% for 2022. The 35 managers referenced by the Union received no pay increases in 2020 or 2021 whereas this cohort of workers received a total of 5.25% during the same period so the actual difference at this point in time is 0.05%. had the Workers accepted the offer of 2.75% they would have received increases significantly higher than the 35 managers referenced for the period 2020,2021 and 2022. Discussion. The Court notes that there is a considerable gap between the parties and that some of the information being relied on in respect of relevant comparators is incomplete. In order for the Court to give any weight to comparators there must be sufficient information to establish that as a whole the package the Workers receive are similar. The Court notes the Union’s position that they have in the past relied on these comparators and the Employers position that there are no agreed comparators and that they have not previously relied on comparators. These opposing positions on matters of fact are unhelpful to the Court. Taking all of the above into account the Court is not at this point in time in a position where it can make a recommendation around a pay increase, that would likely be acceptable to both parties and assist in resolving this dispute. However, the Court recommends that the parties consider returning to the last position they each put forward at conciliation. The Court understands SIPTU’s position to be a claim for 4.75% and the Employers position, an offer of 2.75%. The parties return to local discussions on this basis. If the parties decide they wish to rely on comparators in order to resolve their trade dispute, the Court recommends that they should jointly research the “norm” for staff on similar terms and conditions in the industry in an effort to move their pay discussions forward. Commencing further engagement in this manner should in the view of the Court assist the parties in reaching a resolution to their trade dispute. Any unresolved issues following local discussions should be progressed through the agreed procedures if necessary. The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Therese Hickey, Court Secretary. |
