FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : UAC MANAGEMENT LIMITED T/A THE HELIX (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Grier Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Claim for payment of outstanding increases due under Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case concerns a dispute between SIPTU and The Helix Theatre in relation to outstanding payments due to staff under National Wage Agreements Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016.
The Union is claiming that there is cumulative increases of 25% due to the workers under different phases of National Wage Agreements as far back as January 2004. It contends that there is no structure in place for application of these wage increases and management have continually stalled in applying the payments due. The Union is seeking retrospective application of all outstanding wage increases.
Management's position is that it is operating in difficult circumstances and continues to encount significant losses. It claims that an independent assessor has recommended that the retrospective application of the increases due would seriously jeopardise the viability of the Theatre going forward. Management further contend that it applied a 5% increase in 2006 and again in 2007 despite such losses and continues to address cost reduction.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices ofthe Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 1st July 2008 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1st October, 2008 the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS
3 1 It is unacceptable that basic cost of living increases are being witheld from the workforce. The workers in question are providing an excellent service to the employer under very diffcult financial circumstances.
2 The workers also work unsocial hours and Bank Holiday without the application of the appropriate premia.
3 It is vital that a structure be put in place to clarify the Management's intentions with regard to payments that are long overdue and the application of future payments under National Wage Agreements.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is operating under severe financial difficulties. It continues to make significant losses and has had an independent assessment of its financial position. The assessment clarified the position that retrospective payment of the increases would jeopardise the future viability of the business.
2 Management have continually sought to reduce costs and have applied wage increases where possible. Based on end of year figures to date, it will be possible to pay a further increase of 5%.
3 The Company has made great efforts to engage the Union on matters in dispute between the parties. It is seeking to agree an approach that will resolve matters and alleviate such difficulties re-occuring in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
The claim before the Court concerns the non payment of the terms of Sustaining Progress and the terms of Towards 2016. Due to the financial situation of the Company, it has not been possible to pay the full terms however, 5% was paid on 1st March 2006 and 5% on 1st June 2007.
The dispute was referred to the Court pursuant to Clause 1.10(iii) of the pay agreement associated with Sustaining Progress and Clause 1.9 (iii) of Towards 2016.
In January, 2008 the LRC appointed an Assessor to investigate the Company's claim of inability to pay the full terms of Sustaining Progress and Towards 2016. Having examined and analysed the financial position of the Company, the Assessor reported that any wage payments would have to be paid from increasing deficits and further borrowings and as a result stated that he was satisfied that payment of outstanding monies due was not possible and could seriously jeopardise its future. He recommended that based on end of year results for 2008 and when budgets are set for 2009 that provision should be made for a minimum payment of 5%. Management told the Court that it sees no reason why 2008/9 targets will not be met.
Having considered the submissions made by both parties, and taking account of the findings and recommendation of the Assessor, the Court recommends that the Company should pay 2.5% with retrospective effect from 1st April 2008; and a further 2.5% with effect from 1st October 2008. Furthermore, the Court recommends that if adopted, the provisions of “Transitional Agreement” should be applied from the due date.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
7th October 2008______________________
AHDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.