FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : IRISH DISTILLERS LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr O'Neill |
1. Full Retrospection of Third Phase of Towards 2016 Pay Increases.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the Union's claim for full retrospection of the 2.5% pay increase due under the third phase of Towards 2016. The Company claims that Towards 2016 allows for the deferral by agreement of the 2.5% pay increase and 92% of staff agreed to the deferral as part of a cost-saving plan. 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 18th February, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd June, 2010, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is very profitable and cannot plead inability to pay the full terms of Towards 2016.
2. The Company is, however, attempting to ignore a national pay agreement.
3.The Labour Court has previously recommended that profitable companies should honour the terms of Towards 2016.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1.The Company has consistently acted within the terms of Towards 2016.
2.A significant fall in its sales and profits has forced the Company to propose a cost-cutting plan which was endorsed by 92% of staff.
3.Concession of this claim would, however, jeopardise a cost-cutting plan which is of crucial importance to the future of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
In this case the right of the Union associated with this claim to make its own decisions on matters affecting its members cannot be in doubt. However, as a matter of normal industrial relations practice, there can be no reality in the proposition that a different approach to the payments at issue can be applied to this group than that which was accepted by aggregate ballot of all other employees.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the Union accept the same terms as were accepted by all other unionised employees.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
1st July, 2010______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.