FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BRITVIC IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. New Employees - Restoration Of Agreed Rates Of Pay
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a claim for the restoration of agreed rates of pay at the Company's site in Newcastle West Co.Limerick. It is the Union's contention that new employees were being paid a rate of pay that was lower than the agreed rate of pay. Following a Conciliation Conference Report dated April 11 2016 the Workplace Relations Commission referred the issue to the Labour Court on the 13 April 2016, in accordance with Section 26(1) (a)(b) of the Industrial Relations Act,1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on July 21 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
The Union side argued that the Company had breached an agreement between themselves and the Union by unilaterally introducing a new rate of pay for new employees. The Union side further argued that the established and agreed rates of pay which applied prior to 1 January 2015 should apply to all new starters and any individuals paid less than the agreed rate should have the rate retrospectively applied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
The Company argued that the commercial and economic reality facing the Company meant that it was not possible to offer historic rates of pay to new employees. The Company further stated that the employees in question had individually accepted the new pay rates as they had signed a Contract to that effect and have been in the employ of the Company, at the new rates of pay, for the last 15 months.
RECOMMENDATION:
- Background to the Dispute
This dispute concerns the pay rates applied to 13 workers recruited by Britvic Ireland (“the Company”) at its Ballygowan bottling plant in Newcastlewest, Co Limerick in the period since January 2015. The workers concerned included production operators, maintenance technicians and laboratory assistants.
The Union submits that it concluded a comprehensive collective agreement with the Company in 2009 – the Operational Partnership Agreement (“the OPA”) – and this agreement remains in place. The agreement provides, inter alia, that “amendments or additions can be made to the OPA by mutual agreement between the company and its employees/union representatives.” Notwithstanding that provision, the Company took a unilateral decision, without any prior consultation with the Union, to put in place lower starter rates of pay than those agreed with the Union for new employees at the Ballygowan plant with effect from January 2015.
The Company submits that it was instructed at short notice in late 2014 by its parent company to increase production in Newcastlewest to meet anticipated increased demand for its product in the UK market. The workers who are the subject of this dispute were recruited specifically to support the increased production intended for the UK market. It was necessary, the Company says, to reduce its unit production costs in order to be competitive in that market and it was therefore commercially imperative to recruit the additional workers at lower rates of pay than those that otherwise applied at the Newcastlewest plant at the time. There was insufficient time available to local management to engage with the Union about this issue prior to recruiting the workers concerned but it had attempted, without success, to do so in the intervening period.
Recommendation
Both parties accept that the OPA remains in place and that the Company concedes that it breached the terms of this agreement when it unilaterally introduced new starter rates of pay in 2015. The Court recommends, accordingly, that the Company should apply the agreed rates of pay to the 13 affected workers with full retrospection to their respective start dates. The Court also recommends that the parties engage in discussions regarding the Company’s proposals to introduce amended rates of pay for future new starters.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
JD______________________
27 July 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.