LCR22839

1. Pay Increase

BACKGROUND:

2. 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 14 June 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 10 October 2023.






UNION’S ARGUMENTS:

3. 1. The Union states their agency members are a party to collective pay agreements concluded by the company with the Trade Union.

2. The claim relates to a significant period of a pay freeze where directly employed members of the Trade Union received a lump sum payment in recognition of this period.


EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

4. 1. The Employer states that the Union never raised the agency members at negotiations when this deal was being discussed and did not ballot the agency workers on the outcome of those negotiations which related to directly employed staff only.

2. The agency staff were paid the wage increase applied to the directly employed staff by their employers.







RECOMMENDATION:

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.

The claim before the Court relates to employees of two agencies who worked or work on the employer site.

The claim arises from a collective agreement concluded in 2019 between the trade union and the employer in respect of staff directly employed by the employer. The 2019 agreement was concluded following a ballot of the membership of the trade union who were directly employed by the employer. The employees of two agencies who were members of the trade union were not balloted by the trade union at the time and can be concluded therefore to not be party to the collective agreement of 2019.

The 2019 agreement provided for the payment of €1,250 each to the staff covered by the agreement ‘in recognition of the time that has elapsed since the claim was lodged with the company’.

The Court notes that 10 of the agency workers in employment on the site in 2019 remain in the employment of agencies and located on the site. Approximately six or more of the agency workers who were in the employment of agencies and located on the site in 2019 are now in the direct employment of the employer. The remaining workers in the employment of the agencies and who were located on the site in 2019 are no longer in employment on the site either as employees of an agency or directly of the employer.

The Court has earlier concluded that no basis exists for holding that the employees of agencies located on the site in 2019 were party to the 2019 collective agreement. The Court does however believe that, in equity, an acknowledgement is required that these workers were the subject of a period of ‘wage freeze’ in the same manner as the direct staff of the employer.

The Court therefore recommends that a gesture of goodwill should, in the interest of good industrial relations, be made to the 10 staff who remain in the employment of agencies and located on the site and the approximately 6 of such staff who are now in the direct employment of the employer. The Court therefore recommends that an ex-gratia payment in the amount of €625 be made to each of these 16 or more workers and that any such payment should be made in the most tax efficient manner permissible under the code of the Revenue Commissioners.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CC	______________________
16 October 2023	Chairman