LCR23249

PARTIES:

DIVISION:

SUBJECT:

A dispute concerning the manner in which pay is calculated.

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 12 December 2025 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 April 2026.

RECOMMEDNATION:

Background to the Dispute

The within dispute between SIPTU and Murray Timber (Ballon) ULC (‘the Company’) concerns the manner in which the pay of General Operatives (‘the Workers’) at the Company is structured. The Workers receive a base rate of pay and a variable production related payment (‘PRP’). The base rate varies across the site. A number of the Workers receive a base rate of €12.15 per hour; others receive €14.65 per hour. The Company has not disclosed how the variable element of the Workers’ pay is calculated ‘for operational and competitive reasons’.

The Union’s Submission

The Union accepts that incentive-based payments can be reckonable components of pay for the purposes of the National Minimum Wage Act 2000 but submit that the Company is currently using the PRP as a substitute for a portion of the National Minimum Wage rather than as an incentive payment. The Union further submits that their concerns in this regard are borne out by an analysis of pay patterns since 2017 which demonstrate that as the National Minimum Wage increased, the value of PRP received by the Workers in their weekly wage decreased accordingly. The Union also highlighted that while an individual could work overtime in a particular week, he had no means of anticipating what his take home pay would be for that particular week, in circumstances where no information is forthcoming from the Company in relation to how PRP is calculated.

The Company’s Submission

The Company submits that the pay structure it currently has in place is intended to motivate staff as the PRP element of pay rewards output and productivity. It further submits were it to set the base rate of pay at the National Minimum Wage rate of €14.15, the PRP element of pay would be reduced and the Workers' incentive to work efficiently would be reduced. It is also submitted by the Company, that a change to the manner in which pay is currently structured would give rise to an unreasonable administrative burden on it as payroll would have to manually recalculate the PRP element of each individual Worker’s pay each week having regard to actual production levels that week.

Discussion and Decision

At the within hearing, both representatives agreed with the Court’s suggestion that it would be beneficial them to jointly avail of the assistance of the Advisory Service of the Workplace Relations Commission for the purpose of establishing more effective means of engagement between them at local level. The Court commends the Parties for this.

The Court does not recommend a continuation of the current pay structure arising from which the base rate of pay of many of the lower paid General Operatives falls below the current National Minimum Wage. The Court recommends that this arrangement is discontinued with immediate effect and that the Parties engage in relation to an appropriate revision of the PRP element of pay that incorporates a greater element of transparency than currently exists.

The Court so recommends.

	Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
	Alan Haugh
AM	______________________
27/04/2026	Deputy Chairman

NOTE

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