FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOLLISTER ULC - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Implementation of revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a privately owned U.S. multinational manufacturer of medical device products. It employs approximately 275 staff at its Irish subsidiary located at Ballina, Co. Mayo.
In November, 2000, a productivity deal was agreed between the Company and the Union. The deal improved pay and conditions and offered increases up to 42% to employees.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for payment of the revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness. The Company argues that it has paid over and above the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and should not have to pay the revised terms.
Local discussions could not resolve the issue. The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission held on the 17th of July, 2001. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 3rd of September, 2001 under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 19th of September, 2001.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The deal reached in November, 2000 is a gainsharing deal and in time will be self financing.
2. Other companies have paid over and above the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness and have also paid the revised terms.
3. The Union is willing to consider deferring implementation of the revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness until 2002 with full retrospection to the 1st of April, 2001.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. If the Union had raised the issue prior to November, 2000, the Company would have taken it into consideration when finalising the agreement.
2. The Company reached the agreement in November, 2000 with the Union and understood that it was the final package for the next few years.
3. The November, 2000 agreement far exceeded the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, therefore, the Company should not be required to pay the revised terms.
RECOMMENDATION:
The agreement reached between the parties to PPF in December, 2000, recognises that in negotiating the supplemental increases provided for, particular regard must be had to a number of circumstances in which competitiveness and employment are at risk. These include employments in which pay costs have increased significantly above those implied by PPF.
However, the fact that increases above the terms of PPF have been paid does not in itself mean that claims for the increases provided for cannot be pursued. Rather, it is for the employer to demonstrate to the Court that the effect of paying the supplemental increase, combined with the effect of additional increases already paid, would undermine the competitiveness of the enterprise and the employment which it maintains.
In this case, the Court is not satisfied, on the information provided, that the Company's competitiveness and employment would be so undermined as to justify recommending that the Union's claim be rejected. It is, however, accepted that the Company may have some difficulty in implementing the 2% increase at this time. This position has been acknowledged by the Union and it has offered to accept a deferral of the implementation of the increase to next year. The Court considers that this is a reasonable approach which should be accepted by the Company.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Company agrees to implement the increase on the 1st of April, 2002.
The Court notes that the Union's proposal to defer the implementation of the increase was made on the basis that full retrospection would be paid to the 1st of April, 2001. The Court further recommends that the implementation of this aspect of the proposal should be the subject of further discussions between the parties not later than January, 2002. These discussions should have full regard to the commercial and other circumstances of the Company at that time. Should the parties fail to agree, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
19th October, 2001______________________
GB/CCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.