FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIPPERARY MUSHROOMS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment under the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim is for the payment and the retrospection of the second phase 5.5% and the third phase 4% of the PPF Agreement. The Company is engaged in the mushroom processing business. The claim involves 16 workers.
The claim could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the Union referred the claim to the Labour Court on the 26th June, 2003 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. A Labour court hearing took place on the 9th September, 2003.
The Company lodged a letter with the Court and verbally requested a deferral on the basis that senior management were unavailable to attend. The Court considered the request and after consideration, refused an adjournment and the hearing continued. The Company representative left and made no written submission to the Court.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 Payment and retrospection of the 5.5% of the PPF is due to 16 employees since 1st November, 2001. The Union agreed to a six month deferral of the 5.5% payment due to the Company's financial difficulties. After further conciliation talks the company requested a one months deferral. This was rejected by the Union.
2. The 4%, third phase of the PPF was paid on the 9th June 2003, with retrospection back dated to 1st April 2003. Retrospection was due from November 2002.
3. A ballot by members was held on 26th May 2003 for industrial action to have the 5.5% and the 4% fully paid. To date payment has not been conceded by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company requested a deferral of the case stating that at present they senior management were not in a position to make a submission to the Court due to restructuring and reorganisation of the Company. The Court considered the Company's request, but refused an adjournment.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer did not present any submission to the Court on the substance of the claim. They did apply for a deferral of the hearing on the basis that members of senior management were unavailable.
Having considered the application the Court was satisfied that the employer had received adequate notice of both the basis of the claim and of the date of the hearing. In these circumstances the Court did not consider an adjournment was justified and proceeded with the hearing.
The PPF contains provisions by which an employer can plead inability to pay the terms of the agreement. It is, however, a matter for the employer to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that its economic and commercial circumstances are such as to prevent full compliance with the agreement.
Regrettably, in the present case the employer did not participate in the Court hearing and did not provide any financial information to substantiate its claim of inability to pay. In these circumstances the Court must uphold the terms of the PPF and accordingly, recommends that the Union's claim be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th September, 2003______________________
JB/Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.