LCR22862

CD/23/290

RECOMMENDATION  NO. LCR22862

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 2015

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES:

LEO PHARMA

AND

160 OPERATIVES
(REPRESENTED BY SIPTU)

DIVISION

 Chairman: Ms Connolly

 Employer Member: Mr Marie

 Worker Member: Ms Tanham

SUBJECT

Interpretation of the 2021 Loss of Earnings Agreement

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 18 September 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 3 November 2022.

RECOMMENDATION

The matter referred to the Court is a dispute about the interpretation and application of a collective agreement relating to compensation for loss of earnings.

The agreement in dispute is a composite agreement, incorporating historical agreements which address loss of earnings in respect of (i) shift premia, (ii) variable overtime, (iii) exceptional change overtime, and (iv) a more recent agreement concluded in 2021 addressing rostered overtime.

The current dispute arose when a claim was lodged on behalf of a group of workers in relation to compensation for the loss of earnings in relation to that composite agreement.

When interpreting an agreement, the role of the Court is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the parties to the agreement. Normally that intention can be established by reference to the language used in the agreement and from the way the agreement has been applied by the parties over time.

In this case, submissions made to the Court gave a tangled and complex overview of the matters in dispute with the parties holding fundamentally opposed positions on such matters as the intention of the parties when different agreements were concluded, and the practice when applying the terms of those agreements in relation to timeframes covered and calculations to be used.

The Court expressed some concern at the proposition that the parties were seeking a recommendation to be made in favour of one side or the other, in circumstance where the parties held such fundamentally different interpretations of the matters in dispute. In the view of the Court a simpler or more refined approach may be warranted to avoid giving rise to further issues into the future.

Given the nature of the problem presented by the parties, the parties agreed that they would benefit from further engagement to clarify and refine the issue(s) in dispute.

The Court recommends that this engagement is progressed without delay with a view to concluding matters within a three-month timeframe.

The Court so recommends.

Signed on behalf of the Labour Court

NOT

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to David Campbell, Court Secretary.