FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VOLEX LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Flood Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Christmas bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company commenced production approximately sixteen years ago in Castlebar, Co. Mayo. It manufactures products for supply to the telecommunications industry. It currently employs two hundred and fifty workers. The Company is a multinational.
The Company paid a Christmas bonus to its employees for thirteen years. In November, 2001, a circular was distributed to the workforce stating that due to trading difficulties the Christmas bonus would not be paid that year. The Union accepted the Company decision. In 2002, the Company again informed the workforce that due to continuing trading difficulties the Christmas bonus would not be paid. This was unacceptable to
the Union.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members to re-establish payment of the Christmas bonus scheme and that the 2002 bonus be paid retrospectively. The Company made a decision to give one extra day's leave in December, 2001, and 2002, to the staff as a token gesture. The Union states that the staff were not informed that the extra days were given in lieu of the bonus but were given to rectify an error made by the Company regarding Christmas leave.
The dispute was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th of March, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 3rd of June, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers had come to depend on this extra money at Christmas and accepted it as a condition of employment.
2. The Christmas bonus was formalised in 1997.
3. The Christmas bonus should be re-established and the 2002 bonus paid retrospectively.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Christmas bonus was not formally recognised or referred to in any agreement.
2. It was a global decision not to pay the Christmas bonus which was due to the continuing poor performance of the Company both locally and globally.
3. When the Company becomes profitable again payment of the bonus will be reconsidered.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the Company statement that the bonus will be reconsidered when the Company becomes profitable.
While accepting that the decision not to pay the bonus was a global one, the Court is satisfied that it was not unreasonable of the staff to expect that it would be paid, given the history and method of payment through the years.
However, taking into account the current financial state of the business, the Court recommends that the employees agree to meet with the Company in September, 2003, to review the position, and to explore whether an arrangement could be made locally for recognition of effort at Christmas, in the future.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Finbarr Flood
23rd June, 2003______________________
GB/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Gerardine Buckley, Court Secretary.