FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ELECTRO AUTOMATION (REPRESENTED BY MANAGEMENT SUPPORT SERVICES) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. 1. Cost saving measures. 2. Redundancy terms.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns cost saving measures which the Company want to introduce. 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 February, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 25th November, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Company is a very profitable business with very well-renumerated directors.
2 The Workers have already demonstrated a remarkable committment to introducing cost saving measures.
3 The Workers are not, however, prepared to accept a reduction in their basic pay rate.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company has suffered a dramatic fall in business.
2 The Company is losing existing business and is unable to compete for new business due to its uncompetitive labour costs.
3. Failure to address its labour costs will threaten both current levels of employment and the survival of the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
In the Court’s view the proposals put forward by the Union to resolve this dispute has merit. However, there is clearly a difficulty surrounding the practical application of the proposal to provide an average of five hours unpaid work per week.
This proposal should be further developed by providing that additional hours could be banked over a 13-week period and any hours that remain unused at the end of the quarter would be extinguished.
The Court recommends that with this modification the Union’s proposal should be adopted.
This Recommendation is made on the basis that this proposal, together the remaining proposals which emanated from the Company / Union discussions of 22nd November 2011, will meet the Company’s objective of reducing its labour cost base to the level identified in the course of negotiations. Should it fail to meet that objective the position will, in the Court’s view, have to be reopened.
Accordingly the Court recommends that effectiveness of this arrangement be reviewed after it has been in operation for six months and that it be reviewed annually thereafter.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
28th November, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.