FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BRUNSWICK PRESS LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - DUBLIN PRINT GROUP DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Pierce Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Inability to pay Sustaining Progress (Part 1).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, employing 55 people, is involved in the printing industry and operates from the Bluebell Industrial Estate, Dublin. The dispute before the court concerns non-payment of the three pay increments of Sustaining Progress (SP) Phase 1. The Union, on behalf of it's members employed as Printers, General Operatives, Print Finishers and Bindery Operators, is seeking payment of Phase 1 of SP. The Company rejects the claim and contends that due to it's ongoing financial difficulties it is not in a position to make the payments sought.The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of three conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. An Assessor was appointed by the Labour Relations Commission to examine the financial position of the Company and he upheld the Company's plea of inability to pay.
- As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 26th May, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th September, 2005.
Both parties agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation.
3. 1. Offers made by the Company during conciliation proceedings belie the Company's claim of inability to pay and establish that money was in fact available. In March 2003, a month after the first payment was due under SP, the Company is featured in the Irish Times Commercial Report investing 2 million euro in a new printing machine. The Company has also achieved additional cost savings through a redundancy program. All of these factors present a fundamental contradiction to the conclusions of the assessors report.
2. The members do not accept that the maintenance of the real value of their wage through National Wage increases should be relegated to a lesser obligation than paying any other overhead. They themselves do not have the luxury or facility of suspending payment of their own increasingly onerous domestic bills, subject to their employer selectively electing to honour a nationally agreed pay award.
3. The claim is simply for the maintenance of the real value of wages in line with the provisions of SP part 1, to allow the members to keep pace with hugely increased domestic costs. The Court is requested to find in favour of the Union and award the outstanding 7% due under the agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company experienced a significant decline in turnover in 2003 which continued into 2004. The Company suffered a loss in both these years, so much so that the equity base of the Company has been eroded. The Company embarked on a number of cost saving exercises including implementing a number of redundancies.
2. The assessor appointed by the LRC having received the full range of documentation supplied by the Company concluded, " the Company has valid grounds for its claim of inability to pay under the terms of Sustaining Progress.
3. Any increases on its current cost base would be paid from financial reserves and would exacerbate current trading losses and further reduce competitiveness. The Company has put in place a range of other cost saving measures including redundancies, short time working and invoice discounting. Many of the employees at the Company are paid in excess of the recommended rates.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court can see no basis upon which it could overrule the conclusions of the assessor appointed by the LRC. Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd September 2005______________________
JO'CChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Joanne O'Connor, Court Secretary.