FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BEAMISH & CRAWFORD LTD - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Payment of pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in Cork and brews and supplies beer to the trade. It currently employs approximately 185 staff. In January, 1993, a Fitters Productivity Agreement was drawn up stating that an increase in pay would apply to fitters when the number would be reduced from nine to eight and a further increase when the number is reduced to seven. This was agreed by the Company and the Union. In October, 1993, the Company announced a rationalisation programme resulting in a reduction in staff from 320 to the present number. All employees in the Company were required to increase productivity without any payment. The Company requested the fitters to put their pay issue on hold. The fitters agreed on the understanding that this was a temporary measure while discussions were taking place regarding the rationalisation programme.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of the eight fitters employed by the company for full implementation of the 1993 Productivity Agreement without any further conditions attaching to the payment.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level. The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 27th of May, 1999, and on the 8th of June, 1999. As agreement was not reached,
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 8th of March, 2000, the earliest date suitable to both parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The employees concerned have been patient and co-operative and have honoured all aspects of the agreement.
2. Since 1994, the employees have consistently raised the issue with the Company. Commitments have been given by the Company to deal with the issue but have not been honoured.
3. The payment due under the 1993 Productivity Agreement should be paid to the fitters with no extra condition attaching to the payment. Retrospection should apply from the date of the implementation of the agreement less £2000 already paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In 1993 a rationalisation programme was announced which resulted in the reduction of staff. For the Company to survive, all employees had to increase their output with no extra payment.
2. For the Company to remain competitive in the future, employees, including the fitters, will be required to avail of training to upgrade their skills base.
3. The Company is not prepared to make any payment unless justified by further upskilling arrangements. The £2000 already paid should cover any retrospection due to the fitters.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court considered carefully the written and oral submissions made by the parties. Given the situation outlined in relation to the Company's operations, the Court finds that it is not unreasonable for the Company to require that conditions should apply to the payment of the balance of the monies.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
24th March, 2000______________________
GB/CCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.