FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ATLAS ALUMINIUM (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Application of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF)
BACKGROUND:
2. Atlas Aluminium Limited is a Limerick based Irish Company, manufacturing aluminium and zinc pressure die casting products for the automotive, telecommunications and domestic appliance industry. The Company currently employs 240 people, over 160 are members of SIPTU.
Arising from issues which developed in January 2001, whereby the Company claimed inability to pay the final phase of the PPF, the 2% increase `and the 1% lump sum of the renegotiated aspects of same, the Company attended a Labour Court hearing on the 16 April 2002. The Labour Court's Recommendation LCR 17146 which was issued on 3rd May 2002, dealt with the approach which should be adopted by the parties in relation to payment of increases due under the PPF.
Discussions have continued between the parties on the implementation of the Court's Recommendation. The parties have been assisted in these negotiations by the Labour Relations Commission.
Further issues arose between the parties in relation to the implementation of the Courts Recommendation which were the subject of a conciliation conference in May 2003. As agreement could not be reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th June, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th June, 2003.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Labour Court Recommendation LCR 17146, issued on the 3rd May 2002 had dealt with the dispute between the parties. This dispute was due to the Company's failure to implement the full terms of the PPF.
2. The Company has not implemented the final phase of the PPF (4%) due since April 2002, the terms of the revised PPF (2%) due since April 2001 or the 1% lump sum payment due since April 2002.
3. The Union specifically want to know when the matter of retrospection would be dealt with including proposed dates for payment.They also want the Company to clearly set out when further pay increases would be possible.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company has been experiencing serious financial difficulties which resulted in the Labour Court upholding the Company's position on deferring the PPF increases. The Company's trading position has improved. A difficult recovery programme remains in place, such that trading stability has not yet fully returned.
2. The Company have agreed to implement a programme of wage increases which attempts to balance the aspirations of the workforce with the financial circumstances of the Company. The costs associated with implementing outstanding wage increases and retrospective monies immediately is prohibitive at this current point in time when the costs involved are considered.
3. The Company are very conscious of employee concerns, and this is evidenced by the degree by which they have attempted to communicate the Company's financial position to all employees.
4. The Company is still in a vulnerable trading position such that prudent management of the Company's finances are of paramount importance.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that both parties have accepted Recommendation LCR 17146 and that significant progress has been made in implementing its provisions. Arising from the last conciliation conference, agreement was reached on the payment of outstanding phases of the PPF. The net issue now in contention between the parties relates to the payment of retrospection due under the agreement.
In LCR 17146 the Court recommended that the Company should agree arrangements to pay the outstanding retrospection according as the Company finances permit. The Court endorses and reiterates that view.
In order to assist the parties in implementing that aspect of the recommendation the following process should be put in place:
- The Company should furnish each employee concerned with a statement setting out the amount of retrospection to which they are entitled and should confirm that the amount in question is due and owing.
- The financial position of the Company should be assessed at regular intervals so as to ascertain if and to what extent the amount owing to employees can be paid. This assessment should be carried out jointly by an assessor nominated by SIPTU and a designated member of Management. For the purpose of this assessment the Company should make copies of its quarterly management account reports available to the Union.
- Subject to paragraph 5 below, the Union and Company assessors should seek to agree on what, if any payments can be made following each assessment. If agreement is not reached the matter may be referred to the Court which may nominate an independent adjudicator whose decision will be binding on all parties.
- The first assessment should be undertaken on 1st October 2003, and at three monthly intervals thereafter.
- As a demonstration of goodwill a minimum payment equal to 12% of the arrears due to each individual should be paid at the October assessment and a further 12% at the January 2004 assessment, or such higher amount as may be agreed in accordance with paragraph 3 above.
- With these modifications the proposal which emerged from the conciliation conference held on 29th May 2003 should now be accepted.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd_June, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.