LCR22483

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

MONDELEZ (RATHMORE)

- AND -

47 OPERATIVES
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. Pay and Change

BACKGROUND:

2. 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 30 April, 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 October 2021.

UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union says that the last agreement on pay and change expired in 2018.

2. The Union argues for pay parity with the Coolock site on the same terms and the same timelines.

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Company says that it wrote to the Rathmore Negotiation Committee and SIPTU in March 2020 seeking to conclude an interim two year Pay and Change Agreement covering the period 1st November 2018 to 31st October 2020.

2. The Company says that pay parity with the Coolock site must come with a reduced head count. Having secured $5 million the Company wrote to the Committee and SIPTU offering the same pay proposal as Coolock. The Committee rejected the headcount reduction.

RECOMMENDATION :

Background to the Referral

The previous pay and change programme at the Mondelez (‘the Company’) site in Rathmore expired on 31 October 2018. Historically, the pay and change agreement in Rathmore has been linked with that agreed at the Company’s Coolock site. The most recent agreement in the latter site, concluded in late 2019, was for a 6.75% pay increase over three years but was achieved in the context of a headcount reduction of forty.

The Company proposed a similar increase in Rathmore (from 1 November 2018) with a headcount reduction of seven, subsequently reduced to two in the course of negotiations. Following three Conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission, a comprehensive proposal was balloted on by the Workers concerned and rejected.

The Union’s Submission

The Union submits that the respective workforces in the Coolock and Rathmore sites are not comparable. Having consulted with the Membership at the Rathmore site, the Union’s says that a pay increase should not come at the price of job losses as such job losses would have a more significant effect on that site having regard to the relatively small size of the workforce there compared to that in Coolock.

The Union further submits that the Mondelez Group has been extremely profitable and the former Cadbury Chocolate Group has paid a considerable dividend to the parent company. For these reasons, the Union is seeking the same pay increases as were negotiated at the Coolock site, in return for agreement to normal ongoing change and no job losses at the Rathmore site.

The Company’s Submission

The Company submits that it has invested heavily in the Rathmore plant in order to increase productivity and output. However, it needs to achieve further efficiencies at the site and hence the proposal for headcount reduction and related cost-reducing initiatives.

Recommendation

The Court recommends the Company implements pay increases in line with those agreed at the Coolock site, in return for agreement to normal ongoing change.

The recommended pay increases are as follows:

 2% from 1 November 2018;

 2% from 1 November 2019;

 2.75% from 1 November 2020 (expiring 31 October 2021).

The Court notes the Company’s proposals for achieving increased efficiencies in relation to the following matters:

 A review and refresh of the 2016 “Continuous Improvement” Agreement;

 Cross-skilling/flexibility;

 Temporary summer cover;

 Selection into the laboratory role.

The Court further recommends that the Parties engage intensively in relation to the above matters with a view to achieving the required additional efficiencies and cost-savings necessary to ensure the ongoing competitiveness of the Rathmore plant, including via voluntary severance if needed.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ceola Cronin, Court Secretary.