FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : BAUSCH AND LOMB (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Proposed pay freeze and compulsory redundancies.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is engaged in the production of contact lenses and some pharma products in the Waterford Plant which employs 1,050 staff, 75 of whom are members of the TEEU. In order to protect jobs the cost of manufacturing must be competitive and it was with this in view that the Company proposed a two year pay freeze. The Union is opposed to this pay freeze being implemented
The 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 13th October, 2009, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th September, 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The seeking of a two year pay freeze despite an offer of one year by the Union is nothing but a cynical ploy by the Company to take advantage of the current domestic situation.
2.The production forecast for the Waterford plant is very favourable, due in part to the closure of the Livingston facility.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. In the case of the management/salaried group a pay freeze was implemented for 2009 and 2010. Discussions with SIPTU were concluded successfully with an agreement.
2. The Union cannot be immune to the measures necessary which are required to halt labour cost inflation.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties in this case. The Court notes that the Union has not served a pay claim and has indicated that it has no plans to do so in the foreseeable future. The Court further notes that the great majority of the employees in the Company have agreed not to submit a pay claim, for a defined period of time, as part of a strategy to secure investment and protect jobs. The Court will consider any pay claim that may in future be served on the company in this context and take into account the circumstances prevailing at that time, including the likely impact on investment, jobs and the implications for industrial relations generally within the company, and make a definitive recommendation on the matter.
The Court so Recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
22nd December, 2010______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.