FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ARCON MINES LTD. (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Dispute over the correct pay agreement which should be applied to the pay of 7 Clerical / Administrative / Laboratory Staff
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union is in dispute with the Company over the application of Phase 2 of Partnership 2000. It claims that Phase 3 should have been applied to these workers. The Union claims that Phase 2 was applied by the Company without any negotiation with the Union.
The Company claims that there was an agreement reached with the Union in 1998/99 in respect of ;
(a) Company/Union agreement
(b) Pay Rates and
(c) An incremental scale
It was part of the overall agreement that pay rates/increments established through the negotiations would be amended in line with the provisions of Partnership 2000. The agreement was to conclude on the 30th June, 2001, to be followed by the application of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF) from the 1st July. 2001.
As no agreement was possible between the parties the dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 24th November, 2000 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st December, 2000 under Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court heard the dispute on the 21st March, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company arbitrarily applied Phase 2 of Partnership 2000 when the appropriate increase should have been Phase 3 of that agreement.
2. No other group of workers in the Company were in receipt of P2000 at the time it was applied to the Union's members.
3. A majority of employers were paying Phase 3 of P2000 in 1999 and had moved on to pay Phase 1 of the PPF in 2000.
4. The workers received a 1.5% pay increase in May, 2000 at a time when inflation was averaging 5.2% leaving members with a net wage decrease. A majority of workers were,at this time, demanding a top-up to the 5.5% increase of Phase 1 of the PPF.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 An agreement was concluded in 19998/99 in relation to the rates of pay and conditions of employment for this group of workers.
2. The application of the agreement, including the application of the incremental scale, has given increases of between 5.2% and 7.63% in the year 2000, and will give further increases of between 5.25% and 6.81% in 2001.
3. There would be cost implications for the Company if payment of the PPF was brought forward. There is no provision in the Company's cost parameters for the application of increases beyond those already agreed.
4. Concession of the claim will give rise to claims from other groups which the Company is not in a position to take on.
5. The Company is not in a financial position to meet this claim. It has sustained a financial loss
of IR£6 million for the year ending 31st December, 2000.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the written and oral submissions and the subsequent clarification documents, the Court does not grant concession of the Union claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
12TH April, 2001______________________
LW/LWChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.