FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 S2(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001, AS AMENDED BY THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS(MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT, 2004 PARTIES : A-TRUSS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Referral from The Labour Relations Commission under The Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by The Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the manufacture of roof trusses for supply to the construction industry. The Union's case is that the Company has failed to honour an agreement reached at the Labour Relations Commission's (LRC) Advisory Services in relation to a pay increase in line with the National Agreements. The Company's case is that the decision to postpone the pay increase was made by the Board of the Company due to a sharp downturn in business.
The Dispute was the subject of a number of meetings at the LRC but agreement could not be reached in regard to the pay issue. The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 28th August, 2007, in accordance with Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001, as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 28th November, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Only one week after the Company agreed to pay the increases at the LRC in May, 2007, it confirmed that it would not be paying them. It subsequently unilaterally altered the contract of employment clause.
2. The Union believes that the Company can afford to meet the cost-of-living increases associated with the agreement of May, 2007.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There has been a major downturn in the building sector in the last year which has resulted in significant trading losses for the Company since the end of 2006. A large number of redundancies were made in December, 2006, and more have been necessary since. At this time the Company cannot pay the increases sought by the Union.
2. During the talks at the LRC the Company made a number of significant improvements to the workers terms and conditions of employment (details supplied to the Court).
RECOMMENDATION:
At the outset, the Court established with the agreement of both parties, that the preconditions to jurisdiction had been met and that the matter in dispute was properly before the Court.
It is clear to the Court that an agreement was entered into between the parties under the auspices of the Advisory Service of the Labour Relations Commission which provided (inter alia) for the following pay increases:-
- 4% with effect from 1st April 2007
3% with effect from 1st October 2007
3% with effect from 1st January 2008
- 4% with effect from 1st October 2007
3% with effect from 1st March 2008
3% with effect from 1st August 2008
The Court had detailed discussions with the parties which took account of the Company's profit and loss and balance sheets up to October, 2007, and also a view on the financial health of the Company taken by the Union's industrial engineer.
The Court must take into account the fall in turnover and operating profits experienced by the Company in the current economic climate, (although it continues to have a level of retained profit (and must balance this against the necessity to adhere to agreements freely entered into.
The Court, therefore, recommends that the following increases should apply:-
- 4% with effect from 1st October 2007
3% with effect from 1st March 2008
3% with effect from 1st August 2008
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
12th December, 2007.______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.