FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : ATLAS ALUMINIUM (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Breach of Phase II payments under Sustaining Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute before the court is as a result of the failure of the Company to implement the terms Phase II of Sustaining Progress from its due dates.
- The Union maintains that the Company have adopted this position despite the fact that it has not sought to activate the protective provisions laid out in clauses 1.10(ii) and 1.10(iii) of the National Agreements in respect of inability to pay or to formally seek cost off setting measures to defray the cost of implementation.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th August, 2005 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound the Court's recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 7th December, 2005
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3.1 The workers are frustrated in respect of the non payment of Sustaining Progress Phase II in being fuelled by the fact that the Company are not claiming inability to pay.
2. The Company have outlined a position that it is committed to paying all three phases of Sustaining Progress, but not until June 2006. This position was rejected by the Union.
3. The workers have waited long enough to get their National Wage Agreement back on track.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1 The Company have been struggling in recent times to return to profit on investment. This has led to serious financial difficulties.
2. The Company faces serious problems in relation to depressed order, lack of investment in new equipment and upgrading of existing equipment, high training and labour turnover costs. The current claim represents a serious addition cost, which cannot be afforded by the Company.
3. The Company recognises the difficulties which this causes for employees. However, job security must be of greater importance and the focus for the Company at this time must be on attracting replacement business.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court is most concerned at the failure of the parties to make use of the procedures laid down with the agreement of the Social Partners in clause 1.10 of "Sustaining Progress".
The Company could have lodged a claim of "Inability to Pay" the terms of Sustaining Progress and has not been done so.
The Court, accordingly, recommends the payment of the monetary terms of the Agreement with effect from the due dates.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
21st_December, 2005______________________
JBDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jackie Byrne, Court Secretary.