FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : WILLOW HERB - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Implementation of Sustaining Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company operates a mink farm mainly for the export market. The Union's claim concerns five workers and relates to the implementation of Sustaining Progress. To date there should have been increases of 8.5% from the 1st of March, 2003. The Union claims that the Company's only offer was 1.5% from the 1st of December, 2003. This was rejected by the workers as the Company was looking for them to accept monthly payment. Basically, the Company is pleading an inability to pay.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 25th of June, 2004, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 1st of February, 2005, in Tralee, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The work is very onerous. The workers are on extremely low wages by any standard - €325 - €344 per week.
2. The Company is very fortunate to have such a highly skilled and dedicated workforce which has always co-operated with any changes introduced. The least the workers could expect is to be paid the terms of Sustaining Progress.
3.The Company has not been forthcoming in supplying the financial information as required under Sustaining Progress if it is pleading an inability to pay.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's product is sold on the international market. Due to the fall in the value of the US dollar - more than 30% in the last few years - the Company's profit has fallen by a similar amount.
2. The Company is in the process of rebuilding its entire farm at an estimated cost of €1.5 million. This is necessary to avoid causing water pollution in a nearby lake. The Company cannot afford to pay increases of 7%.
RECOMMENDATION:
The employer is, in effect, pleading inability to pay in full the increases provided for in the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress and PPF. Clause 1.10 of that Agreement sets out the procedure to be followed where such a plea is made. In the Court's view, this procedure must be strictly followed before the Court could uphold a plea of inability to pay. The first requirement under the procedure is that the employer should seek to convince the Union of its case and must do so by making full disclosure of all relevant financial and related information.
In this case, the employer has not provided the Union with any information to justify its plea and has merely asserted that it cannot afford the increases due. In these circumstances, the Court cannot uphold the Company's plea of inability to pay and recommends that the Union's claim for full implementations of the Agreement be conceded.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th February, 2005______________________
CON/MB.Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.