FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : MEDITE EUROPE LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Refusal to pay Third Phase of Towards 2016
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a panel-board manufacturer and is part of the semi-state group of companies known as Coillte. The Unions' claim is for payment of the third phase of Towards 2016 (T16). It first made the claim in July, 2009. The Company's case is that T16 no longer has currency and that it cannot afford to pay any increase.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission (LRC) and a conciliation conference took place. As the parties did not reach agreement, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 16th November, 2010, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 15th June, 2011, in Waterford.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Unions specifically asked the Company it it was pleading "inability to pay" or refusing to pay the Second Phase of T16 but it has declined to answer the question. Instead it has adopted a "wait and see" policy.
2. The Company is part of the Coillte group which had an increased turnover of €43 million in 2010. Sales for the Company itself also increased in 2010.
3. The workers have cooperated fully with the terms of T16 and have engaged with the introduction and operation of many new work practices.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's business was in crisis from late 2008 when the market crashed and all available resources were applied to maintaining employment. A pay increase is not appropriate at this stage if the Company is to remain competitive. There were no pay increases in 2009/2010.
2. Despite being part of the Coillte group the Company is a stand-alone business and cannot rely on Coillte for financial support.
RECOMMENDATION:
Both SIPTU and TEEU referred a claim before the Court for payment of phase three, 2.5% due from 1st April 2009, underTowards 2016 Review and Transitional Arrangement (“the Agreement”).
The employer submitted that a pay increase was not appropriate in the market conditions facing the Company since 2008.
The Court notes that the Unions’ claim for the application of the 2.5% increase was made on 6th July, 2009, when the Agreement was still in existence. Secondly, the Court considers it very significant that the Company did not claim inability to pay the increase in part or in full as provided for under Clause 1.11(ii) or 1.11(iii) of the Agreement.
In such circumstances, the Court must abide by the terms of the Agreement and, accordingly, recommends that rates of pay for those categories represented by the Unions should be increased by 2.5% retrospectively to 1st April, 2009.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
28th June, 2011______________________
CONDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.