FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : TIPPERARY MUSHROOMS - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Alleged Non Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. The claim before the Court concerns the non-payment of 2.5% under the terms of the second part of Sustaining Progress with full retrospection to twenty five General Operatives. The pay increase of 2.5% was due from the 1st February 2006. The Union wrote to the Company in February and again in March seeking payment for the employees. The Company responded by explaining that they were unable to pay the increase due to the difficult competitive environment in which the company was struggling to survive.
The claim could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. The Union referred their claim to the Labour Court on the 20th July, 2006 in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 12th June, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The workers are not very well paid with no pension or sick pay scheme and work in extreme conditions. Therefore the pay increase with full retrospection is more than justified. The Company applied the the first two stages of Sustaining Progress but not the third and therefore are part of the agreement reached.
2 The Company are in breach of Sustaining Progress. No objective grounds have been provided to the Union of inability to pay this claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 At a second Conciliation Conference the Report of an Assessor appointed from the panel provided by the Labour Relations Commission was considered. The Company's position was accepted by the Union and under the guidance of the Chairperson an agreement was reached. The agreement was "in full and final settlement of all claims by the Union and obligations by the Company to date under Sustaining Progress and T2016".
2 In compliance with the terms of Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016, the Company exhausted the Industrial Relations procedures including full disclosure of its financial position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case came before the Court by way of a claim by the Union for the application of the final phase of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it was unable to pay the increase at issue. The Union sought to invoke the procedures prescribed by the Agreement in cases of claimed inability to pay but the Company failed to respond to invitations to participate in the process. The Company contends that it successfully pleaded inability to pay the relevant increases through its parent group and concluded an agreement in that regard with SIPTU.
It is unclear as to whether the agreement relied upon by the Company relates to the entire group of which the Company is a part or to another single employment within the group. It is clear, however, that the workers who are party to this claim were not represented in the negotiations leading to the conclusion of that agreement nor could they have benefited from its terms.
It is noted that the Company against which this claim is made has ceased to trade and that the workers associated with the claim have all been made redundant. It is further noted that the total value of the claim to each individual concerned is in the order of €200. In these circumstances, and having regard to the number of workers associated with the claim, the Court recommends that the Company offer, and that the Union accepts, a payment of €200 for each of the five former employees concerned in full and final settlement of all claims relating to or arising from the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
2nd July, 2007______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.