FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : DIAMOND INNOVATIONS (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS & EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Application of Viability Plan Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute, which arose from the Company's plan to recruit additional permanent employees on the 'Market Based Wage Structure' outlined in the 'Viability Plan' of December 2009, concerns a difference in the interpretation of the clause dealing with 'Market Based Wage Structure'. 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 7th July, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th September, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Workers have suffered serious loss of income, and change to terms and conditions of employment over the past two decades.
2 The 'Viability Plan' provided for the employment of agency staff under the 'Market Based Wage Structure'.
3The 'Viability Plan' does not provide for the recruitment of permanent employees on inferior pay and terms and conditions of employment.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Union must abide by the terms of the 'Viability Plan'.
2 Failure to implement the agreed 'Viability Plan' will undermine the future viability of the plant.
3. The Company must be allowed recruit permanent employees on rates of pay which are consistent with market norms and are considerably in excess of the national minimun wage.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submissions of both parties in this case.
The Court finds that the parties agreed in 2009 that the cost base of the company was out of line to the extent that its continued viability was at risk. Consequently the parties agreed a new lower pay structure for new workers. The Company chose to engage such workers through various agencies in the first instance with the intention of converting these to permanent employee status as circumstance permitted. The union was of the view that there would be further discussions on the appropriate rate of pay for such workers when they were being made permanent employees.
The Court accepts that both these positions are genuinely held.
Accordingly the Court recommends that the workers be converted to permanent employees on their current (agency) terms and conditions of employment. Thereafter, within 12 months, the parties should meet to review those terms and conditions of employment to determine if they continue to reflect the market rate for the job as set out in the 2009 agreement.
Any disagreement between the parties arising out of these discussions should be processed through the normal industrial relations procedures agreed between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
3rd October, 2011______________________
JMcCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.