FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DAKOTA PACKAGING LTD - AND - DUBLIN PRINTING GROUP OF UNIONS SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Phasing and implementation of Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016:-Cost-offsetting measure under Clause 1.9 (iii) of Towards 2016.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is based in the Airways Industrial Estate, Dublin and employs approximately 77 workers in the manufacture of packaging products.
Over the past four years a number of cost-cutting measures were adopted by the Company. These included a reduction in staff numbers and the postponement of pay awards.
The dispute before the Court concerns a claim by the Union for retrospection due from Sustaining Progress Part 2 and retrospection and payment of the final two phases of Towards 2016.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of two conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. Following the first conciliation conference an agreed Assessor was appointed to review the totality of the Company's performance over the previous four years.At the conciliation conference following the Assessor's Report agreement was not reached and the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 12th September, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 18th January 2008.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Group of Unions made it clear that the priority is to get a time-table for payments back on track with the rest of the printing industry and to then quantify and address the outstanding retrospection.
2. The Group of Unions maintain that it has always offered to be flexible in its approach to the payment of retrospection but that the Company has refused to negotiate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. With the current exception of re-phasing the wage payments, the Company has never defaulted in paying the terms of any National Wage Agreement in it's 60-year history.
2. The financial challenges facing the company in recent years necessitated the restructuring of the various phases of T2016. Without this form of wage payment re-alignment the Company would not have survived in the manner that it did.
3. The Assessor's Report concluded that " bearing all the circumstances in mind, both of the Company's own position and the market-place difficulties, the assessment is that the Company was justified in using the delay in the payment of T2016 awards as a cost-saving measure in order to assist the Company' survival".
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions the Assessor's Report and the report from the IRO, endorses in principle the proposal which was put forward at conciliation and therefore recommends:-
- that the final payment due under T2016 should be brought forward to the 1st May 2008 if the financial position , as already outlined, so allows,
- if not, that the meeting with the IRO should take place on the 9th April 2008 as already agreed, and
- that the amount of the once-off voucher offered in lieu of retrospection should, in the interest of settlement, be increased from €150 to €200 per person, payable on acceptance of this recommendation.
The parties are reminded of their obligations to meaningful local discussions under Clause 1-8 of "Towards 2016".
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
31st January 2008______________________
MG.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Madelon Geoghegan, Court Secretary.