FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES: IRISH LIFE - AND - 110 SALARY PATH WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY UNITE THE UNION) DIVISION:
SUBJECT: 1.Pay 2. All profitable companies in the private sector have concluded pay increases for the years 2020 and 2021. 3. The union says that its members continue to give exceptional commitment to the Company and continue to deliver to the highest standard.
2. The Union has not submitted any evidence of pay settlements in other companies in the sector to support its claim. 3.The Employer says that a crucial factor would be any knock on effect that a pay increase would have for the remainder of its employees particularly those in the clerical administration area. The Company wants to treat all its employees equally.
Notwithstanding the fact that this trade dispute has come before the Court at two hearings in late 2022 and early 2023 it has been clarified by the parties that no claim or trade dispute in relation to pay movement in 2022 (if such a claim or trade dispute exists) is before the Court. The parties have engaged extensively both directly and with the assistance of the Workplace Relations Commission. The claim before the Court involves up to 110 workers and the employer employs 3,000 people approximately. The pay system in the employment as it applies to the workers represented before the Court was established by a collective agreement in 2015. That agreement provides, insofar as these workers are concerned, for a system of pay involving two components across two elements - (a) “Pot 1” which is basic pay and (b) “Pot 2” which is a performance related payment which might be agreed to be made in a given year based on individual performance graded across five possible levels. It is not in dispute that the parties’ collective agreement allows for annual negotiations in respect of “Pot 1” pay increases. Neither is it in dispute that the 2015 collective agreement provides that
The employer does not contend that any issue relevant to the Court’s consideration arises from its performance or profitability. Both parties are agreed that CPI for 2020 was 1% and was 4.5% in 2021. The parties are in dispute both as regards the quantum of pay increase to apply in respect of 2020 and 2021 and as regards the degree of increase that should be applied to each “Pot”. The employer proposes that a nil increase should apply to “Pot 1” for 2020 and that performance related increases of between 1% and 1.5% should apply to those 43 staff who could benefit from “Pot 2” in that year. In addition, the employer offers a once off payment of a minimum of €1,000 or €500 to be paid depending on certain conditions. The Trade Union claims an increase of 1.5% in 2020 and that the increase should be applied to “Pot 1” only. No claim for a once off payment of €500 or €1,000 was made by the Union before the Court. The employer proposes that for 2021 a 1% increase should be applied to “Pot 1” and that an increase of between 1.5% and 2% depending on performance should apply to “Pot 2”. The Trade Union claims an increase of 6% in 2021 and that the increase should be applied to “Pot 1” only. The Court has carefully noted the submissions of the parties and, having regard to the parties’ 2015 collective agreement which sets out the matters to be taken into account when addressing “Pot 1” pay movement, has taken particular account of the parties’ assessment of CPI in 2020 and 2021 together with their submissions on ‘Market Movement’ and ‘Norms’. The Court, having regard to these matters, recommends as follows: That the parties trade dispute should be resolved by application of the following 2020 (to be applied in April 2021)
The Court also recommends that the employer’s offer as regards staff who may wish to move from Salary Path to Career Path should remain. 2021 (to be applied in April 2022)
The Court so recommends.
NOTE Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary. |
