FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : BOXMORE PLASTICS LIMITED - AND - A GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY JOHN RONAYNE) DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Changes to bonus scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's case concerns changes made to the Company's bonus scheme in 2006, affecting 11 workers. The Company was sold to the Chesapeak Corporation in February, 2000. The Company in Ballyconnell has operated a staff bonus scheme for 15 years. Payout from the scheme have been linked to budget financial targets. A change to the Boxmore scheme was negotiated in 2003 and compensation was paid to reflect a decreased opportunity to earn remuneration from the new Chesapeak scheme. The employees accepted the change on the basis that the new scheme would apply for future years. The Union claims that in 2006 the Chesapeak Corporation imposed a new bonus scheme, claiming that the scheme was "discretionary", and resulting in a loss for the workers concerned.
The workers referred the case to the Labour Court on the 18th of July, 2007, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court took place on the 10th of October, 2007, in Cavan. The workers agreed to be bound by the Court's recommendation. The Company did not attend the hearing but in a written statement to the Court stated that the bonus is a matter of contract offered on a discretionary basis. The bonus was changed for all employees in all countries in 2006 due to a change in the business plan. The workers concerned were given an opportunity to significantly influence their bonuses and this resulted in them receiving 85% of the amounts in dispute.
WORKER'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The scheme in 2006 differed from the 2005 scheme in a number of ways. The performance measures on which the bonus was to be paid were largely outside the control of workers concerned. At best the loss of earnings for the workers would be €54,000.
2. The workers are seeking the restoration of the 2005 bonus scheme and believe that any new scheme should be the subject of consultation and agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission made on behalf of the workers and the statement made by the Company. It is a matter of regret that the Company chose not to attend the hearing.
The Court considers that the position agreed in June, 2003, acknowledges the fact that any 'discretionary' change to the bonus scheme would respect a position that the Company's discretion would not mean to "simply arbitrarily decide to deny access to a different bonus plan, or withdraw it, without notice or replacement with something else".
This statement of position made by the Company in 2003 clearly states that bonus arrangements cannot be unconditionally altered.
The Court, therefore, recommends that further engagement should take place to resolve the bonus issue from a position that fully respects previous undertakings given.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
18th October, 2007______________________
CON.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.