INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
1. Pay Increase
2. This dispute concernsa claim by the Union for a pay increase for members working in the Cootehill plant. The plant in Cootehill was established in 1975, it is a part of Abbott's nutrition division making specialised infant formulae. It is the largest such plant in the Abbott Corporation worldwide.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th April, 2015.
3. 1. The Company has experienced significant change in recent years. Much of this is positive with increased orders.
2. The Plant and the Company are highly profitable.
3. The increased responsibilities that have come about through the recent restructuring, together with a greater workload and improved efficiencies must be acknowledged.
4. 1. The Company operates in a deeply competitive market.
2. The terms and conditions at the Cootehill plant are extremely favourable. The Company offers an excellent range of benefits which even further enhance the high compensation employees receive.
3. The rates of pay currently paid to employees are extremely competitive and the increases offered exceed those applicable by reference to industry and regional comparisons.
The dispute before the Court concerns the Union’s claim for increased rates of pay for its members employed at the Company’s plant at Cootehill. The Union submitted claims for substantial increases in pay due to increased responsibility and workloads associated with the level of changes taking place in the organisational structure of the Company. It submitted claims on behalf of General Operatives, Process Operatives, Panel Operatives, Laboratory Technicians and Storemen.
The Company stated that in order to remain competitive the proposed changes were essential and entered into negotiations with the Union on agreeing a deal.
The Court notes that there have been lengthy discussions on this issue which commenced in February 2014. A number of offers have been made which were rejected by the Union and the Union have submitted a number of claims over the period of negotiations.
The Court notes the Company’s final proposal dated 21stJanuary 2015, as outlined at Appendix 10 of the Company’s submission. This provided for a set of proposed increases in pay over a period of three years, commencing from and retrospective to 1stJanuary 2014. The Union rejected this proposal.
Having given careful consideration to the considerable detail of this case and to the submissions made by both parties, the Court endorses the Company’s proposal to conclude a three year agreement and recommends that the Company’s proposals dated 21stJanuary 2015 should be amended by the following changes:-
- •The proposed increase of 2.25% from 1stJanuary 2016 should be increased to 2.75%.
- •The once off lump sum offered to the ‘Panel Operators’ should be increased to €2,500 and to ‘Back Up Panel Operators’ to €1250.
In recommending the above, the Court is stating that both sides must consider this Recommendation as a composite package, in full and final settlement of all issues before the Court.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
28th April 2015Deputy Chairman
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.