LCR23302

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 7 April 2026 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 7 July 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

The Dispute

This dispute concerns one hundred and ninety Operatives (‘the Workers’) employed by Stafford Miller Ireland (‘the Company’) in its Oral Care medical device facility in Dungarvan, Co. Waterford. The Company employs 224 employees on this site and is now part of the Haleon Group.

The Workers have opted into Haleon’s Global Bonus Scheme (‘the Scheme’). There are two tiers to the Scheme:

• The base element which provides for the achievement of 0 to 100% of bonus target and is linked to the achievement of stated, job-specific KPI’s. The KPIs have been agreed with the Union and are assessed on a quarterly basis; and
• The ‘stretch’ element which provides for achievement of additional bonus payments in the amount of 100 to 150% of bonus target. The dispute concerns the operation of the latter element of the Global Bonus Scheme.

The Union’s Submission

It is submitted by the Union that there is insufficient clarity in the Scheme in respect of how a worker might achieve in excess of 25% in a quarter and/or in excess of 100% in a year. It is further submitted that the decision to award an individual in excess of 100% is taken by members of senior management who have no direct contact with the Workers.

The Union told the Court that it has made proposals to the Company to address the perceived lack of transparency in the application of the second tier of the Scheme. These included the re-introduction of the so-called Innovation Performance Trust operated by a previous owner of the Company and joint exercise between the Union and the Company to agree specific criteria akin to KPIs. Neither proposal was acceptable to the Company.

The Company’s Submission

The Company submits that the ‘stretch’ element of the Scheme is intended to reward behaviours and outcomes that exceed those stated in the KPIs that apply in respect of the base element. In the Company’s submission, ‘above and beyond’ performance can often occur in unforeseen ways and is not amenable to linkage to pre-determined KPIs. The ‘stretch’ component of the bonus scheme is, therefore, according to the Company’s representative, in place as a mechanism to employees who step up to solve unforeseen crises or innovate outside their immediate remit. Recommendations for payment to individual workers of bonus in the 100-150% range of target bonuses are made by line managers, supported in each case by a detailed rationale. They are then considered and reviewed by a group of senior managers. Finally, it is submitted on the Company’s behalf that the Scheme is a group-wide scheme and the Company has no autonomy to make structural changes to it locally.

Recommendation

It is common case that the achievement of 0-100% of target bonus is linked to the fulfilment of job-specific KPIs that have been agreed between the Parties. There is additional potential for a worker to achieve bonus in the range of 100-150% of target where that person’s contribution in a given year is ‘above and beyond’ what is required to achieve 100% of target bonus. It seems eminently reasonable to the Court that that the additional potential bonus element should not be fettered to specified KPIs as to this would fundamentally alter the purpose of having this tier of the bonus scheme in place.

Having considered both Parties’ detailed written and oral submissions, and for the foregoing reasons, the Court does not recommend concession of the Union’s claim.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
CC	______________________
13/07/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

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