FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BALCAS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr McGee Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Failure to introduce a Defined Contribution Pension Scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures timber-based products for the construction industry and most of its income is derived from exports to the United Knigdom. This dispute concerns the Company's failure to introduce a defined contribution pension scheme. In 2003, negotiations on the introduction of a defined contribution pension scheme stalled because the Union was not satisfied with the level of the Company's contribution to the scheme.
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 30th November, 2007, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 4th June, 2008, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. When negotiations, concerning the introduction of a pension scheme, commenced in 2003 the Union initially sought the introduction of a defined benefit pension scheme, but the Company said thay it was only prepared to introduce a defined contribution pension scheme. It is not acceptable now for the Company to refuse to introduce adefined contribution pension scheme.
2. In 'Towards 2016', the government and social partners accepted the need to increase pension coverage, 'subject to the costs involved not undermining competitiveness and employment'. That the Company is profitable and employing new staff demonstrates that the introduction of adefined contribution pension scheme would not undermine 'competitiveness and employment.
3.The Workers are an integral part of this successful company and the Union is seeking the introduction of a properly funded defined contribution pension scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's profitability has been affected by the recent slowdown in the domestic constrution industry.
2. 85% of the Company's sales are in the United Kingdom and the increasing strength of the Euro has had a dramatic effect on the Company's competitiveness there.
3.The Company is not, therefore, in a position to absorb the costs involved in introducing a defined contribution pension scheme.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the submissions of the parties, recommends that a pension scheme should be introduced. Such a scheme should eventually match the accepted norms for a defined contribution scheme, with matching contributions from employer and workers. The parties should engage in order to agree a timescale, phased if deemed appropriate, for the introduction of the scheme.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Raymond McGee
5th June, 2008______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.