FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001 SECTION 2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001 PARTIES : IRISH EXPRESS CARGO (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Carberry Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation 17469.
BACKGROUND:
2. On the 14th April, 2003 the Union's application under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 2001 was the subject of a Labour Court investigation. The dispute concerned the Union's claim for, inter alia, payment of the full terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). In LCR 17469 which was issued on the 14th April, 2003 the Court recommended, in relation to pay, as follows:
"The Court recommends that the parties adhere to the pay terms of the PPF. However, the agreement does provide for a mechanism by which the employer can plead inability to pay.This involves, in the first instance, seeking to convince the Union that the economic circumstances of the employment are such that the full terms cannot be paid without undermining competitiveness and employment.
The information so far provided is not sufficient to allow the Union make an evaluation of the Company's position or to respond to the arguments made by the Company in support of its inability to pay. The Court recommends that the Company should provide the Union with such information as it may reasonably require to properly evaluate the current position. This process should be completed by 1st June, 2003 by which date the parties should report back to the Court. The Court will then issue a further recommendation in light of the information then to hand.
As an interim measure the Court recommends that the Company should pay an increase of 4% on account with effect from 1st January, 2003. This should be in addition to the increase already paid from that date".
In June, 2003 the Court issued a supplementary recommendation as follows:
"The Company have not sought to convince the Union that it is unable to meet the full terms of the pay agreement associated with the PPF in the manner recommended by the Court or at all. Accordingly, the plea of inability to pay cannot be upheld. The Court therefore recommends that the Company fully comply with the terms of the PPF and that all outstanding phases be paid with appropriate retrospection".
The parties subsequently entered discussions on LCR 17469 but agreement was not reached on the issue of application of the PPF to wages and the resulting issue of retrospection. The Company's final offer on the retrospection issue was €550 per worker across the employment. It was rejected by the Union following a ballot of the workforce. The parties then sought a definitive recommendation on the issue. A further Court hearing was held on the 18th March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The rate as at 1st January, 2000 was €297.00. This includes the 4% applied retrospectively for 1999 as per the Company's original submission. The Company want this 4% included as a PPF payment. This cannot be the case. The first phase of the PPF should have been applied on top of this i.e on April, 2000. The remainder should be added as per the normal PPF time frame.
2 The Union's calculations were carried out for all grades and information is based on the lowest rates of pay. It has offered the Company to settle the issue on the basis of one payment fits all employees based on these rates. The Union is willing to settle the issue on the basis of a payment of €1,200 to each worker. The only provision it requires is that a small number of workers, currently excluded from the January increase of 10% should have this increase applied.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The PPF increases, as with all other previous national agreements, was applied to existing pay review dates in each company. In most companies this was the expiry of the pay agreement under Partnership 2000. The Company's position is that the 4% paid in January 2000 is the annual pay review for the year 2000 and must relate to the period applicable to PPF (the first phase of PPF). It was paid only three months prior to the agreement date of PPF, within what would be regarded as the timeframe of PPF for many companies.
2. With regard to the group of workers excluded from the 10% increase paid in January, the Company is willing to enter discussions with the Union on the issue.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the rate as it stood on 1st April,2000 was used in applying the increases due under PPF for the purpose of adjusting basic pay. It follows that the retrospection should take account of all the increases applied to basic pay from 1st April onwards. As the 4% paid in January, 2000 was not offset against the phased increases due under PPF, the retrospection should be calculated without regard to that increase.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union's claim in respect of retrospection should be conceded and the commencement date of PPF should be agreed as being 1st April, 2000.
With regard to the group of employees excluded from the 10% increase paid in January, this aspect of the dispute does not relate to the issue referred to the Court. It is noted, however, that the Company proposes to have discussions with the Union on this matter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
25th March, 2004______________________
TOD/BRChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.