FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BANCTEC LIMITED - AND - AMICUS DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Cost of living increases
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a manufacturer / supplier of hardware and software support services to financial institutions. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of BancTec Inc. Dallas, USA.
In November, 2004, the Labour Court issued LCR 18016 which dealt with a number of issues including a pay increase from 1% to 4% for two workers in line with National Agreements for 2004. The Court recommended in favour of the Union and the Union sought the increase through the Company's internal procedures. It also sought assurances for increases for 2005 and subsequent years in line with the National Agreements. The Company refused to increase the 1% payment for 2004 but, the Union claims, gave broad assurances about increases going forward. Whilst the Company did pay some increases for 2004-2006 they fell short of the National Agreements. The Union is now seeking that the full increases should be applied.
The Union referred the case to the Labour Court on the 10th of January, 2005, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 17th of May, 2007.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. In LCR 18016 the Court found that the workers had a"genuine grievance with regard to their pay increases for 2004, as the increases did not have due regard to increases agreed at national level".
2. The Company gave broad assurances about increases going forward from 2005, however, it is clear that the Company has not honoured these assurances nor LCR 18016.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In July, 2005, the workers' case for a pay increase was heard through the Company's internal grievance procedure. Whilst the report accepted that the increases were low, it found that it was ultimately the Company's decision on what level of increases is given.
2. The Company, in line with all other subsidiaries of Banc Tec Incorporated, receives an overall salary percentage increase each year. At present that increase is restricted to 1.5% each year. The current remuneration package received by the workers concerned compares favourably with similar roles in similar industries.
RECOMMENDATION:
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for outstanding pay increases from 2004 up to and including 2007. The Union outlined the details of the claim, as follows:-
Year Increases Cost Of Living Shortfall/
Paid Increase Claim
Member C & D* 2004 1% 3% 2%
All Members 2005 2.3% 4% 1.7%
All Members 2006 1.5% 4% 2.5%
All Members 2007 4% 4%
In response to the Union's claim, the Company stated to the Court that it was bound by the level of increases allocated by its parent Company in the USA.
Having considered the views of the parties expressed in their oral and written submissions, the Court notes the following:
- The increases paid by the Company over the years in question have not been in line with the terms of the National Wage Agreements agreed between the Social Partners - "Sustaining Progress" and "Towards 2016" and consequently have not kept pace with inflation.
- In terms of the pay provisions the Company has not complied with Labour Court Recommendation No: 18016 brought under Section 2(1) of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 2001 as amended by the Industrial Relations (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2004.
- The Company has not processed a claim of inability to pay outstanding increases under the Agreements within the terms of either "Sustaining Progress" or "Towards 2016" whereby an assessor may be appointed for the purpose of evaluating the economic, commercial and employment circumstances of the Company and may require the Court to issue a binding decision on the issue pursuant to Clause 1.10(ii) of Sustaining Progress and / or Clause 1.9(ii) of Towards 2016.
- Neither has the Company processed a claim that it is not possible for it to pay the terms of the Agreements in full and / or that it was necessary to seek some cost offsetting measures in order for it to be able to pay the increases in accordance with Clause 1.10(iii) of Sustaining Progress and / or Clause 1.9(iii) of Towards 2016.
The Court, accordingly, in all the circumstances, recommends that the Company should pay the increases claimed by the Union from the due pay dates, namely, 2% to members C and D with effect from 1st July 2004; a further 1.7% for all members with effect from 1st July 2005; a further 2.5% for all members with effect from 1st July 2006; and a further 4% for all members with effect from 1st July 2007.
*Members C & D were named in the Union's submission to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th June, 2007______________________
CON/MB.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.