FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : EBS - AND - UNITE DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Unpaid annual pay increases.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim for annual pay increases due under the performance review system. 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 27th July, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 9th December, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The performance related pay system, which was agreed between the parties in 2000, must be honoured in full by the Company.
2 The Workers have continued to participate in the system despite the fact that they have received no pay increases.
3 The Company is now owned by the State. Employees of the State receive incremental pay increases. As the Workers are nowde factoemployees of the State they should not be refused their performance related pay increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company has incurred significant losses over the last three years and will continue to be loss-making for the foreseeable future.
2 The Company, which is now owned by the Minister for Finance, would not exist if it had not received circa €1 billion of State recapitalisation. The Company must now focus on a return to viability and repayment of monies invested by the taxpayer.
3. This claim is, accordingly, unrealistic and inappropriate.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns the Union’s claim on behalf of approximately 300 employees for payment of annual pay increases. The Union submitted that the pay increases were due since January 2011 and arose due to an established and agreed performance related pay system which had been agreed in May 2000 and operated from 2000 up to and including the year 2008. In 2009 an interim transitional agreement was negotiated which providedinter aliafor a 3% pay increase for 2009 and a further 3% for 2010. The Union now seeks further pay increases for 2011 and 2012.
Management acknowledges the existence of the May 2000 Agreement however, it informed the Court that it was no longer in a position to honour the terms of that Agreement due to the extent of the losses it had sustained. Furthermore, it referred to the Government’s recent recapitalisation of the Company and it is now under the ownership of the Minister for Finance. Accordingly no pay increases of any kind could be paid in the Company without the express permission of the Department of Finance.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the Court is of the view that in the context of the excessive losses incurred by the Company and the conditions under which the Government is supporting, payment of the pay increases cannot be justified.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
13th December, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.