FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : KROMBERG & SHUBERT LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr. Somers |
1. Payment of Programme for Prosperity and Fairness retrospection.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures cable and wire harnesses for the automotive industry and is located in Waterford. In 2002 the Company indicated to the Union that it had difficulties in paying the second phase of Programme for Prosperity and Fairness due to trading difficulties. The Union believed that the Company intended to cease production. Discussions were prolonged due to ongoing redundancies and no agreement was reached.
- The dispute could not be resolved at local level and 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 12th December, 2003 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th March, 2004.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The reason for nonpayment of the 5.5% increase was to minimize the cost of the compulsory redundancy programme. Money allocated to fund pay increases should not have been used to offset redundancy costs.
2. The Company could not honour their commitment to pay the phases of the National Wage Agreement when they had known it to be a cost factor since January 2001, but could put further investment into training and development.
3. The Union propose that workers remaining in the Company to have their back pay entitlements calculated and both current workers and those who have left the Company be paid the original proposal by the Labour Relations Commission immediately, which is €140 plus the equivalent of a day's holiday pay and that the balance owed to them be paid within an agreed timeframe.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. All increases under National Wage Agreements have been paid in spite of market conditions. Though payments have been deferred, it was timing rather than the level of pay which was affected.
2. The focus presently is on maintaining the remaining employment.
3. The Company cannot afford to deal with retrospective payments as it has incurred substantial losses over the last four years. The Company are agreeable to the Union nominating a relevant person to view the accounts.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerned the non-payment of retrospection due under the terms of the second and third phase of Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF). The Company has indicated that, due to their financial position at present, they are unable to pay the retrospection due and, therefore, are pleading inability to pay.
Having considered the positions of both sides, the Court recommends payment of the retrospective payments due, for those employees currently in employment, in two phases, as follows:-
50% of the retrospection due to be paid from 1st June 2004, and the remaining 50% to be paid from 1st January 2005.
For those employees who left due to redundancy, the Court recommends a total payment of €250 each, to be accepted in full and final settlement of all retrospective claims. This payment should be paid on 1st June 2004.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
11th May 2004______________________
JO'CDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.