FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : CASTLE FURNITURE (WATERFORD) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Claim of inability to pay increases due under National Wage Ageement Towards 2016
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a claim for retrospective pay increases due under the National Wage Agreement Towards 2016. The Union is claiming the retrospective application of the phases due for payment. Management contend that it cannot afford to pay the increases due, which, it claims, has been substantiated by an assessor appointed in line with the provisions of the Towards 2016 Agreement.
The dispute was not 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 matter was referred jointly to the Labour Court on 9th March, 2009 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. Both sides agreed to be bound by the Court's Recommendation. A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd June, 2009.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The workers involved in this claim are poorly paid and should have the increases applied from 1st January, 2007. Atthat point in time, the Company had excessive cash reserves and should have applied the increases.
2 The Company have applied the increases due to the Craft Personnel in its employment. It is unacceptable that these low paid general operatives be treated less favourably.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company is experiencing difficult trading circumstances and cannot sustain the costs of the additional pay increases to the workers.
2 An assessor was appointed in compliance with Towards 2016 and he concluded that the Company was unable to pay the increases due.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the submissions of the parties the Court can see no compelling basis upon which it could disregard the report of the Assessor appointed by the LRC to examine the company’s ability to pay. The assessor has found that the Company cannot pay the increases claimed. The Court upholds that finding.
An issue did arise in the course of the hearing concerning the position relating to earlier phases of the agreement and whether other groups were paid those increases. A question also arose as to the Assessors understanding of the position in that regard in reaching his conclusions.
The parties should clarify the factual position in that regard. If it transpires that other groups were, in fact, paid increases not paid to the Claimants, the union should be free to reopen the matter with the company.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
14th July 2009______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.