FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NUTRICIA LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Payment of Sustaining Progress/cost-offsetting measures
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim relates to the non-payment of Sustaining Progress (SP). The Company says that it is willing to pay SP - backdated to October, 2004, - but is seeking cost-offsetting measures first in accordance with Section 1.10 (iii) of SP. The Union, on the other hand, is seeking payment of SP first before it will consider any cost-offsetting measures. There are three Unions in the Company, - TEEU, SIPTU and AMICUS. The TEEU reached an agreement with the Company. At a conciliation conference at the Labour Relations Commission, SIPTU agreed to have an independent assessor look at the case in accordance with Section 1.10 (ii) of SP. AMICUS, however, refused to become involved in the process and asked to have the issue referred directly to the Labour Court. This was done on the 16th of June, 2005, in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th of August, 2005.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In May, 2004, the Company made proposals to restructure and reduce the workforce. The Union's position was that it would co-operate provided the Company paid the terms of SP. However, in September, 2004, the Company said it would not be paying SP.
- 2. The Company is highly profitable and is not pleading an inability to pay. The workers have not received a cost-of-living increase for over one year. They believe that the actions of the Company are an attempt to exploit the provisions of SP.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's manufacturing sites in Europe are under considerable competitive pressure to reduce their cost base and improve productivity. The Company is not one that makes considerable profit as the Union believes (details supplied to the Court). The purpose of the cost-offsetting measures is to ensure long-term viability.
- 2. The Company has reached agreement with the two other Unions involved, including appointing an independent assessor, but AMICUS has refused to engage in discussions.
RECOMMENDATION:
This is a claim by the employer that it is not possible to pay the terms of Sustaining Progress and that cost-offsetting measures are necessary for it to do so. Such a claim is provided for by Clause 1.10 (iii) of the Agreement.
It is noted that in respect of this plea of inability to pay, an Assessor was appointed under Clause 1.10 (ii) of the Agreement in relation to a dispute between the Company and another Union representing employees at another location. The report of the Assessor is now available.
In these circumstances, the Court recommends that the Company should furnish the Union with a copy of the Assessor's report and the parties should return to conciliation to discuss its findings.
If agreement is not reached, the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
15th August, 2005______________________
CON/DHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.