LCR22938

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

New Pay Agreement, Health Insurance Cover & Annual Leave Entitlements for newly hired workers.

BACKGROUND:

This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 31 January 2024 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 04 March 2024.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

1.   The Union is seeking a 5% pay increase to basic pay retrospectively applied to 1st April 2023, 2nd Phase of 5% from the 1st April 2024 with an expiry date of 31st March 2025.
2. The Union is seeking the restoration of the additional Annual Leave retrospectively applied to each of their members involved to the date of commencement of employment.
3. The Union is seeking the restoration of the Health Insurance retrospectively applied to each of their members involved to the date of commencement of employment.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer is of the view that their final offer at conciliation of 4% from 1st April 2023 plus a €500 voucher and a 3.75% for year 2 plus a €500 voucher is fair and appropriate having regard to other comparable pay deals being conclude
2. The old annual leave policy is now defunct with all new recruits commencing employment and remaining on 22 days annual leave since 2016.
3. The offer of employment us set out in a contract and does not include healthcare

RECOMMENDATION:

There are three issues in dispute between the parties, pay, healthcare and annual leave. The last pay agreement expired 31st March 2023 and the parties engaged locally on a follow up agreement. However, as agreement could not be reached the issues were referred into conciliation and ultimately to the Labour Court.

 The Court has given detailed consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties. Both parties in their submissions to the Court included in their appendices a copy of their 2013 collective agreement. The Court in the course of the hearing engaged with the parties jointly and individually.

 The Union submitted that in respect of healthcare and annual leave entitlements the Employer had made unilateral changes to the existing schemes.  The Unions claim was in respect of seven members who they were seeking to have included in the healthcare scheme and to move to 25 days annual leave. The Union provided the Court with excerpts from the staff handbook which showed the annual leave entitlements as 25 days after three years’ service and that there was an entitlement to health care. The Workers in question all had a minimum of three years’ service.

 The Employer submitted that the annual leave was changed to 22 days for new recruits in and around 2016. They did not dispute that prior to that after three years’ service annual leave increased from 22 days to 25 days. They accepted that they had not engaged with the Union prior to making that change. In respect of the health care scheme, the Employer stated that the scheme had closed for new members in 2020 and they had written to employees in 2021 telling them that.

 The Employer accepted that they had not engaged with the Union prior to closing the scheme. The Employer accepted that the staff handbook that was currently available to staff on their internal system, still contained the paragraph detailing healthcare provision and the entitlement of 25 days annual leave after three years.

 The Union had initially lodged a pay claim with the Employer of 9% from 1st April 2023 and 4% for year 2 April 2024. The Union submitted that the Company were in a financial position to meet its claims and set out in their submission some financial details to support this.

 The Company responded with a proposal containing two options,

Option 1, 3.75% from 1st April 2023 +€500 voucher and 3.5% for Year 2+€500 voucher or

 Option 2 Move to a market-adjustment with a minimum increase of 3.75% and lower paid employees would receive the greatest increase and 3.5% for year 2+€500 voucher. 

 The Union countered with a position of 3.75% from 1st April 2023 plus €500, a further 2.25% from 1st October 2023, totalling 6% for year 1 plus €500 voucher and 4% for year 2, plus €500 voucher.

As agreement could not be reached the issue was referred to conciliation where SIPTU maintained a claim of 8% over two years with the increases to be front loaded.  Management reiterated the position they had put to the Union at local negotiations with the two options.

 After the initial conciliation in August 2023, and in advance of the next conciliation hearing the Union by letter of 11th August 2023, rejected the suggestion of a market based assessment model and set out their claim as, 10% pay increase on the basic rate of pay over two years, and the restoration of health insurance, and annual Leave that was unilaterally withdrawn from Workers.

 At the final conciliation the Unions position was as set out in the letter of 11th August 2023.  The Company tabled a further proposal of 4% from 1st April 2023 +€500 voucher year 1, and 3.75%  from 1  April 2024 plus €500 voucher year 2. In relation to the healthcare and annual leave the Employer made no proposal.  This proposal was rejected by the Union and the issues were jointly referred to the Court.

In the course of the Labour Court hearing an issue arose in respect of the existing collective agreement of 25th November 2013.  Under section 10, titled Collective Grievances, Formal grievance procedure, there is a clause stating “ Should the parties still fail to reach agreement the matter may be referred to the LRC or Rights Commissioner and, if matters remain unresolved, to a full hearing of the Labour Court here the recommendation of the Labour Court will be binding on both parties”.  It was noted that the meaning of this clause had been the subject of an earlier Labour Court recommendation LCR21147 under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969.  

The Employer indicated that it was their expectation that the Labour Court recommendation would be binding on both parties. The Union indicated to the Court that it was the expectation of their members that they would have an opportunity to ballot on any recommendation that the Court might make.  Conscious of the fact that the parties have been in discussion for over a year and  in order to avoid the need for an adjournment to clarify this matter, which could lead to further delay, both parties agreed on a once off basis in respect of this particular Labour Court recommendation only, to suspend the clause in their collective agreement which binds both parties, to facilitate the Union  balloting on this recommendation.

 The Court recommends that in respect of the seven staff members identified in the course of the hearing, that their annual leave be increased to 25 days for the current year and going forward, and that management update their handbook to reflect that the standard annual leave entitlement is 22 days.  The 25 days annual leave is red circled to the staff that held it at the date of this recommendation and the seven named individuals who will move to 25 days annual leave in the current leave year, on acceptance by the Union of this recommendation.

The Court recommends that in respect of the seven staff members identified in the course of the hearing that they be included in the health insurance provision as soon as is practical on acceptance by the Union of this recommendation.  The health insurance scheme to be red circled to the staff that held it at the date of this recommendation, and the seven named individuals who will move into them scheme, on acceptance by the Union of this recommendation.

 In respect of pay the Court recommends a two year pay agreement as follows.

1st April 2023            4 %

1st January 2024        4.25%

1st January 2025        1%

The agreement to expire on the 31st March 2025.

 The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Louise O'Donnell
AR	______________________
6 March 2024	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Aidan Ralph, Court Secretary.