CD/25/56 | RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR23162 |
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
LAKELAND DAIRIES
AND
8 MILK Intake Operators
(REPRESENTED BY SIPTU)
DIVISION:
Chairman: | Ms Connolly |
Employer Member: | Mr O'Brien |
Worker Member: | Ms Hannick |
SUBJECT:
Complaint under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relation Act 1990.
BACKGROUND:
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 referred to the Labour Court on 2nd of March 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 2nd of July 2025.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court is a claim by SIPTU on behalf of eight milk intake operators employed at the Bailieborough dairy processing plant for a re-grading of their role from Grade 6 to Grade 7/Chargehand with a retrospection back to Spring 2023.
The union submits that the origin of this dispute dates back to a claim for pay equalisation in 2017. It contends that the current grade structure has been the source of tension between management and members as there is no scope to recognise responsibility, complexity or workloads and in the past the company has acted unilaterally to regrade certain roles. The parties failed to reach agreement on the implementation of a wider grade review in 2023 and again in March 2025. Meanwhile, the introduction of a new system of grass-fed segregation has had a significant impact on the workload and responsibilities of milk intake operators.
The company’s position is that the claim before the Court breaches a three year pay agreement (concluded in June 2024) as it is cost increasing and would lead to unsustainable costs in terms of knock-on claims. It further contends that concession of the claim would undermine extensive efforts over a three-year period to address wider grading issues within the company in a fair, equitable and holistic manner.
The Court notes that the backdrop to this dispute is a complex and protracted one.
In parallel to the within dispute, the parties have engaged extensively with an independent party in a wider grading review exercise across the wider company. While delayed due to Covid-19 restrictions, an independent Grading Review Report (March 2023) and Final Report (March 2025) recommended that a new grading structure be implemented in the company. As part of that new grade structure, the milk intake operator role would be re-graded to a newly created grade (termed “Grade 6+”).
The Court is informed that the company proposals emanating from that wider review process were rejected by an overwhelming majority of the workforce. The parties have arrived at an impasse in relation to that matter. As a result, a new grade structure was not implemented. The historical current grade structure remains in situ.
The only matter now before the Court is a dispute about the appropriate grading of the role undertaken by eight milk intake operators at the Bailieborough dairy processing plant.
The Court has given careful consideration to the oral and written submissions of the parties.
In the absence of agreement on the implementation of a new company wide grade structure, the union is seeking that individual roles are regraded. It seeks that the milk intake operator role at the Bailieborough dairy processing plant is regraded to newly created grade (which it terms Grade 6.5). It cites additional tasks undertaken by the eight milk intake operators together with the findings of the Grade Review Reports in support of its claim.
The union acknowledges that its proposed new grade is not part of the current grade structure in situ in the company and differs from the company proposal which following the publication of the Grade Review Report in 2025. While it accepts that it has other groups in membership in the company seeking to have their roles regraded, it submits that each claim should be assessed on its own merits.
The company submits that the union cannot be allowed to cherry pick aspects of a Grade Review Reports that will have wider knock-on implications across the company.
The Court notes that both parties are in agreement that a grading structure that is fit for purpose and meets the needs of the business is required.
However, in this case, the Court is being asked to recommend that one operator role within the company is re-graded in circumstances where it has been provided with insufficient information about the duties undertaken by that role, the methodology undertaken by the union to supports its claim for a newly created grade, Grade 6.5, the implications of the introduction of a new grade on the wider grade structure currently in situ, and the cost implications of the claim. In that regard, the Court notes that both parties are in dispute about whether the within claim is cost-increasing or not.
In light of the above, the Court cannot recommend concession of the unions claim at this time.
Taking account of the particular circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that the parties would benefit from further engagement on the matters in dispute. The Court recommends that this engagement is progressed without delay and concluded within a three-month timeframe from the date of this recommendation. The assistance of the Workplace Relation Commission is available to the parties, if necessary. If agreement cannot be reached, the matter can be referred back to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
![]() | Signed on behalf of the Labour Court |
![]() | |
![]() | Katie Connolly |
CC | ______________________ |
15 July 2025 | Deputy Chairman |
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.