FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ATLAS ALUMINIUM LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Keogh Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Bonus / PPF payments.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures die cast products for the automotive, telecommunication and domestic appliance industries at its plant in Limerick. It currently employs approximately two hundred and forty seven workers.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for payment of the Bonus/Service related payments which were due in December, 2001, and will be due again in July, 2002, and the following payments under the revised terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness, 2% due since the 1st of April, 2001, and 1% due since the 1st of April, 2002, and 4% under the final phase of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness due since the 1st of April, 2002.
Due to severe financial difficulties, the Company cannot concede the Union's claim.
The dispute was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th of March, 2002, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th of April, 2002.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Bonus payments were introduced in the mid 1980's as a reward and recognition for the efforts of the employees and to compensate for the low wage paid to them.
2. The bonus payments were cancelled without agreement. The payments should now be restored as they are part of the pay structure, and terms and conditions of employment of the workers concerned.
3. The Union recognises the financial difficulties of the Company. The workers concerned have cooperated fully with every cost cutting initiative put forward by the Company. The payments due under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness should be paid.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Bonus payments were never guaranteed.
2. Bonus payments are only possible when the Company is achieving an acceptable profit and return on investment. Due to the present financial difficulties, the Company cannot reintroduce the bonus payments.
3. Management has always implemented any increases under National Wage Agreements. The current financial position does not allow the payments due under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness.
RECOMMENDATION:
In considering this dispute, the Court is of the view that the following points are of particular relevance:-
- Due to serious financial difficulties, this Company is claiming "inability to pay" phase three, the revised terms of the PPF and Bonus Payments.
- The Union acknowledges the Company's financial difficulties at present.
- The Company's target is to break even this year.
- Staff turnover, levels of absenteeism and level of liability claims are a great concern to management.
The Court considers that an equitable and prudent way of dealing with the claims before it is as follows:-
- The Company should reinstate the Bonus/Service Related payments with immediate effect.
- The Company should consult with the Union on its strategic and business plans to return to profitability and to re-establish a successful business operation.
- The Union should give every support to the Company in its efforts to win orders, to reduce costs/improve material usage and to reduce liability claims.
- The Company should give a commitment to employees to get the PPF payments back on track. It should seek to agree arrangements to pay the outstanding retrospection according as the Company finances permit, and should indicate when further pay increases will be possible.
On the basis of the information received, the Court is satisfied that concession of the Union's PPF claims would be unrealistic at this stage. Therefore, the Court recommends that these claims should be deferred pending an improvement in the Company's financial circumstances.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
3rd May, 2002______________________
GB/MBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.