LCR22880

Pay Claim

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 21st September 2023 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 22nd November 2023.

UNION'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Union’s members have argued that they have sought a reasonable pay increase for the 2-year proposed. Their members do not believe that any pay agreement should have any conditionality above normal ongoing change.
2. The Union’s members have worked throughout COVID-19 pandemic and have provided continuous service for the period.
3. The Union’s members have seen significant increases in living costs since mid-2021. Their pay claim will still result in a significant reduction in their real wage since 2021 and consequently their living standards.  

EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:

1. The Employer states that every effort has been made by the Company to meaningfully engage with SIPTU at each stage of the process.
2. Throughout the Employer’s working year rostering of public holidays are essential to the long-term viability of the factory in Ireland.

The Employer’s desire to work together with SIPTU to ensure the long-term viability of the business and to sustain and grow employment.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

The matter before the Court is a pay claim by the Trade Union. An earlier proposal of a 3% increase in pay in each of 2023 and 2024, which had been recommended for acceptance to their principals by both negotiating teams, was rejected by the membership of the trade union.

Since that rejection, the employer has made an improved pay offer but in the context of an agreement that seven public holidays would be rostered as normal working days. Historically, public holidays have been worked on a voluntary and not on a rostered basis.

At the hearing of the Court, the Trade Union submitted that, whereas a degree of rostering of public holiday working had earlier been engaged with between the parties at negotiating level, the membership had since clarified that no mandate existed for such a development in the context of the current claim. The Employer has submitted that, whereas a pay increase of 3% per annum for each of two years with a commitment to co-operation with normal ongoing change, may have been acceptable at an earlier point, the matter of rostering of public holiday working had now become more important to the business.

The Trade Union submits that a change from voluntary working of public holidays to a system where public holidays would be rostered as normal working days is a significant matter for its membership. The Employer has asserted that the achievement of this change is a significant matter for the business.

In all the circumstances, the Court recommends that:

Pay should be increased by 4 % with effect from 1st January 2023 and a further 3.75% with effect from 1st January 2024.

• That in return there should be full co-operation with normal ongoing change including continuous improvement for the duration of the agreement.
  
  
• That there should be no cost increasing claims for the duration of the agreement.
  
  
• That the parties should commence the update and review of the works agreement
  
  
• That comprehensive engagement should take place between the parties in relation to the proposal to roster public holiday working. That engagement should conclude during the lifetime of this agreement such that any agreement can be incorporated into any successor pay agreement
• This agreement to expire on 31st December 2024.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Kevin Foley
CDK	______________________
19 December 2023	Chairman