LCR23210

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

Referral under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

BACKGROUND:

The Union referred this case to the Labour Court on 26 September 2025 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969, and agreed to be bound by the Court’s Recommendation.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 09 January 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

Background to the Dispute

Crown Paints Ireland Limited (‘the Company’) has had a collective agreement with SIPTU since 2004 pursuant to which the Parties, inter alia, negotiated annual pay increases. The Company was acquired by the Hempel Group (‘the Group’) in 2011. In recent years, the Group - which operates in over eighty countries – has sought to streamline its operational procedures across its many subsidiaries. It has engaged with its Irish workforce and with the Union since September 2024 in relation to the introduction of an Annual Salary Review (‘ASR’) process to replace the annualised pay negotiations for across-the-board pay increases. The Company’s proposal to introduce the ASR process has gone through a number of iterations, each of which has been rejected to date by the members.

The Parties attended conciliation on the matter under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission but did not achieve agreement. It appears that the Company was unable to agree to a referral to this Court under section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 as they felt constrained by the instructions coming from the Group. The dispute has, therefore, come before the Court through a referral by the Union under section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.

The Union’s Submission

The Company submits that it has full negotiation rights, including in relation to annual pay increases, pursuant to the 2004 Agreement with the Company and that that Agreement has survived the changes in corporate ownership that culminated in the company becoming part of the Group.

The Union further submits that the Company is seeking to unilaterally breach the Agreement by forcing the introduction of the proposed ASR process without the Union’s consent in circumstances where the members have genuine concerns about the impact and fairness of the proposed changes.

The Company’s Submission

The Company acknowledges the existence of the 2004 Agreement and accepts that a unilateral introduction of the ASR would be outside of the terms of the Agreement. However, it submits that it has made strenuous efforts to engage with the Union in good faith and has made a number of concessions in order to attempt to allay the Workers’ concerns. For example, has granted an additional annual leave day and proposed transitional arrangement to bridge the move from global annual pay increases to ASR. Ultimately, however, it has been directed to harmonise its processes – including those that relate to setting pay levels and providing for annual pay increases – with those of the wider Group.

Discussion and Recommendation

In engaging with the Parties, the Court emphasised the importance of respecting negotiated agreements such as that in place in the Company since 2004 while at the same accepting that no agreement is immutable. In the circumstances of this case, the Court is of the view that it behoves both sides to engage more fully with a view to understanding the other side’s perspective and concerns. To this end, the Court recommends that the Parties avail themselves of all relevant services of the Workplace Relations Commission, including the Advisory Service and the Conciliation Service as appropriate, in effort to move the dispute forward. Should the Parties not have resolved matters through those means within three months of the date of the within Recommendation, they may return to the Court to seek its assistance to do so.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
ÁM	Alan Haugh
12 December 2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be in writing and addressed to Ms Áine Maunsell, Court Secretary.