FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GERARD DANIEL WORLDWIDE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Retrospective Payment
BACKGROUND:
2. The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for the payment of increases due under the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement. The first payment due under this Agreement was for 3.5% on the 1st October, 2008. The payment was not made to the workers concerned. The Company's position regarding the payments was that the terms of the Agreement were unsuited to the financial pressure it was facing in maintaining its business and competitiveness in the marketplace. The Unions position is that the Company was doing well at the time and at no time pleaded an inability to pay. Following correspondence between the parties and a meeting in October, 2010 agreement was reached whereby the Company would pay an increase of 3.5% dated from 1st November, 2009 and an increase of 2.5% dated from 1st May, 2010. No agreement could be reached on the issue of back pay for the period October, 2008 to November, 2009.
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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 2nd June, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th May, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1 The claim relates to a period from October, 2008 to November, 2009. This was a period when the Company was booming. At no stage did the Company plead inability to pay.
2 The Company has been doing well since that time and bonuses have been paid to staff to reflect good results.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1 The Company's sales and operating income was down 24% and 11% in 2009 compared to 2008. It was also down considerably in 2010 compared to 2008. A short time working week was introduced for some workers in February, 2010 and other departments are working below their normal efficiency. The Company's position is that payments due under the Transitional Agreement were unsuited to the financial pressure it was facing.
2 The Company are of the view that the period of time from October, 2009 to November, 2010 should be regarded as a period of a pay freeze.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends that the Company offer and the Union accepts a payment of €750 to each person associated with the claim.
This payment should be paid in two phases as follows:-
- €500 on acceptance of this recommendation
- €250 in January 2012
This payment should be accepted in full and final settlement of the dispute.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
16th June, 2011______________________
DNChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to David P Noonan, Court Secretary.