INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
TOWNEY BAY FINISHING COMPANY
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Haugh
Employer Member: Ms Cryan
Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell
1. Pay Claim
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Worplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 4 April 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court Hearing took place on 8 July 2016.
3. 1.The workers have not had a pay increase since 2007.
2.The Company is profitable and can pay its workers a reasonable pay increase.
3.The increase must be in basic pay and the Union is seeking pay increases of 2% per annum from April 2014 in line with Labour Court Recommendations and agreements in other employments.
4. 1.The average annual rate of pay for workers in the Company is not out of line when looking at rates of pay for both semi skilled and unskilled workers in the manufacturing based sector, on size and regional location.
2.The Company cannot afford the level of pay increases being sought by the Union and any pay concessions made must be from a current date and cost neutral.
3.The Company operates in a highly competitive industry and it has made an offer in good faith with specific conditions around cost offsetting mechanisms, and with no retrospection. This is the best and only offer that the Company can sustain.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim for pay increases on behalf of the 65 workers employed at the Respondent’s plant in Kilcar, Co. Donegal.
The Union submits that its members have received no pay increase since 2007. It is now seeking a multi-year pay deal – with retrospection to 2014 - as follows: 2% from 1 April 2014; 2% from 1 April 2015; and 2% from 1 April 2016.
The Respondent’s position is that is that it is competing in a very competitive global textile business, supplying the international aviation business. It is competing in particular with low-cost producers in the Far East and India. Over 40% of its product is exported to airlines based in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, the Respondent has made significant capital investment in its business and in the Kilcar plant and has managed to trade through the recession without imposing pay cuts or making redundancies. It made an offer of a pay increase in December 2015 of 2.5% plus a One4All voucher payment to the value of €750 payable over 2015 and 2016. As part ofthis proposal, the Respondent sought a reduction in premium rates on overtime for maintenance work from 50% to 20%. The proposal was rejected by a ballot of the Union members.
Having regard to the parties’ submissions, and also to the rate of pay increases in comparable companies, the Court recommends the parties enter into a two-year pay agreement on the following terms:
•1 January 2015 to 31 December 2015: 2.0%
•1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016: 2.0%
•Once-off One4All tax-free voucher of €500.00 per employee to be paid on acceptance of this Recommendation, in respect of 2014
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15 July 2016______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Michael Neville, Court Secretary.