FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HOYER IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Phases 1 And 2 Of T2016. Cost Offsetting Measures
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Company's claim that it cannot pay wage increases due under 'Towards 2016' unless it can achieve appropriate cost-offsetting measures. An LRC-appointed assessor stated that although the Company is entitled to cost-offsets he did not have any role in identifying appropriate cost-offsets. The Union claims that the Company is seeking substantial change which is outside of normal ongoing change.
This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a Conciliation Conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 27th November, 2008, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th December, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is seeking substantial change which is outside of normal ongoing change.
2. The Workers are highly-trained, dedicated drivers involved in the transportation of volatile petroleum liquids in a safe and professional manner.
3.The Workers are entitled to the wage increases set out in "Towards 2016".
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a very competitive market and has exhausted all cost saving options with the exception of seeking improvements in drivers' efficiencies and productivity.
2. The Workers are operated under an outdated 20 year old system that takes no account of improved roads and vehicles.
3.The cost-cutting measures sought by the Company may also result in the Workers being paid more for working in a more efficient and productive manner.
RECOMMENDATION:
The case came before the Court by way of a claim of inability to pay the terms of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016, pursuant to Clause 1.9(iii) of the Agreement. In effect the Company contends that it is unable to pay the increases due unless it obtains a reduction in job standards. The Union have refused to engage with the Company on that issue.
The Company’s claim of inability to pay was considered by an Assessor appointed by the LRC. However the report of the Assessor does not definitively address the economic, commercial or employment circumstances of the employment as a whole. Rather, it concentrates on the viability of the particular contract giving rise to the dispute and concludes that in relation to that contract the Company is justified in seeking some cost offsetting measures. It is noted that all employees of the Company other than those involved in the particular contract at issue have been paid the disputed increases.
Clause 1.9 of the Agreement provides, in effect, that in cases such as this it is for the employer to convince the Court of its case. On the basis of the information placed before it in the course of this investigation the Court is not convinced that the Company is unable to pay the increases in issue without the cost off-setting measures which it claims.
There is, however, another important aspect to this case which the Court must address. The Company have sought to engage with the Union on a review of job standards. It contends that the standards which are of long standing are no longer appropriate due to changes in the road infrastructure and traffic volumes. The Union have, in effect, refused to negotiate with the Company on this issue.
As this Court has frequently pointed out, no agreement can be regarded as immutable for all time and as circumstances change agreements must frequently be changed to reflect those changed circumstances. The Company believe that the circumstances justifying the setting of the standards at issue have altered. In the Court’s view they are entitled to seek a review of those standards and it is unreasonable of the Union to maintain its refusal to engage with the Company in that respect.
Accordingly the Court recommends as follows:-
1. The outstanding phases of the pay agreement associated with Towards 2016 should be paid with effect from the due dates
2. The Company and the Union should agree to undertake a joint review of the appropriateness of the current standards. This review should have regard to all relevant considerations, including their impact on the viability of the current contract, the changes in journey times since their introduction and the standards applicable in analogous employments. This review should be completed within three months of the date of acceptance of this Recommendation. If agreement is not reached on the substantive issues the matter may be referred back to the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th December, 2008______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.