LCR23317

CD/26/145

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990.

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 03 June 2026 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial

Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 13 August 2026.

Page 1

RECOMMENDATION:

Background:

Following a hearing at the Labour Court on 14 October 2025 from a referral under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990, the Labour Court recommended the parties “have further intense engagement on these issues under the auspices of the WRC for a period of twelve weeks” (LCR23190). The parties engaged in further conciliation conferences with the WRC on four dates: 19 November 2025; 21 January 2026; 17 February 2026; and 19 May 2026. Agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 3 June 2026 in accordance with section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place in Dublin on 13 August 2026.

Union’s Arguments (SIPTU)

The Union sought to address core pay issues for its members and set a realistic pathway to pay parity with the Sectoral Employment Order (SEO) for the Construction Sector in respect of pay rates, pension, sick pay and death in service benefits. The Union set out that general operatives were paid €14.64 per hour, only €0.49 per hour above the national minimum wage, despite predominantly working unsociable hours with a 10pm start and a 6am finish without any premium being paid. Payment for illness absence went no further than provided for by statute.

Having originally sought to have the terms of the Construction Industry SEO applied to its members, following engagement with the WRC conciliation services and the Labour Court, the Union amended its claim and sought recommendation from the Court for the following:

A 6% increase in basic pay paid retrospectively from 1 August 2025;

A 7% increase in basic pay from 1 August 2026;

An unsociable hour premium of 25% for hours worked from 9pm to 7am in addition to current weekend and bank holiday allowances;

Sick pay increases from 70% daily rate to 100% daily rate (confirmed as limited to the applicable statutory daily rate);

With the percentage pay deal to conclude on 31 July 2027.

Employer’s Arguments:

The Employer expressed grave concerns with the Union’s goals of establishing parity with the SEO for the Construction Sector which it considered did not apply to its business but in any event would not be commercially sustainable within the industry in which the Employer operated, potentially jeopardising the company’s very survival. The Employer identified that none of its competitors applied the Construction Sector SEO. The Employer however, acknowledged the importance of ensuring its employees are fairly rewarded for the specialist and demanding work they undertake.

Page 2

The Employer noted that it generally applied wage increases of 4% in April of each year but that in 2025 it had also paid an increase of 4% in September 2025, notwithstanding this pay claim was in being at that time. The Employer acknowledged that the initial 4% in April 2025 was necessary to bring the general operatives’ rate of pay back above the minimum wage.

The Employer identified that it had been willing to offer increases in the context of the initial claim but changes to its cost base, including in respect of pay increases already paid in 2025 and particularly fuel costs, meant that it was concerned regarding the viability of any further increases in costs at this time given that there was no scope to recover such increases from customers. The Employer said that it remained committed to reviewing pay and conditions on an ongoing basis but that any improvements must be capable of being sustained in the long term and must reflect the commercial realities within which the company operates including its exclusive reliance on fixed price public procurement contracts to maintain its business. The Employer identified that it was its practice to apply increases across the board in the company so that if an increase was applied in respect of this claim, it would have a knock-on effect on all 140 employees of the company.

The Employer further identified that it had proposed a structured training plan for general operatives and was committed to engaging further with the Union on the introduction and/or development of same.

The Employer urged the Court to not make a recommendation which would impose obligations beyond the company’s financial capacity, adding additional financial pressure on a business already operating within fixed-price public procurement contracts and facing significant increases in operating costs, as such a recommendation would reduce the company’s competitiveness, limit future employment opportunities and undermine the long-term interests of both the company and its employees.

Recommendation:

The previous Labour Court Recommendation (LCR23190) in this matter made clear that the referral was not the appropriate forum for a decision in respect of whether these workers were construction workers as defined by the Sectoral Employment Agreement (SEO) for the construction industry. In this referral the Court adopted a similar approach which was that the applicability of the SEO to this group of workers was not on the table for consideration, an approach accepted by the parties at hearing.

The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties including the competitive challenges faced by the Employer, and noting the pay increases applied in 2025, recommends a pay deal to cover the period from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027 in the following terms:

That the Employer provide for the following increases in pay for the workers who are part of this claim (those general operatives earning €14.64 per hour as a basic rate of pay):

From 1 April 2026 (backdated) an increase of 4%;

From 1 September 2026 an increase of 1%.

In circumstances where the Company has indicated a willingness to consider an increase in sick pay, the Court recommends that the current arrangement, whereby statutory sick pay is paid, is changed to allow for payment of 100% of basic pay (subject to the maximum pay per day provided for in statutory sick pay) for the number of days provided for as statutory sick leave, with effect from 1 September 2026.

Page 3

The Court notes the efforts by the Employer to develop a more structured training plan for workers, arising in the context of this claim, and the positive response from the Union in respect of the draft produced by the Employer. The Court recommends that the parties engage in discussions to finalise proposals in that regard in a timely manner.

The Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim for an additional premium payment for unsociable hours at this time.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Niamh McGowan
AL	______________________
20th August 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Decision should be addressed to Ms Amy Leonard, Court Secretary.