FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : NEW ERA PACKAGING LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Pay.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the non-payment of increases due under 'Towards 2016 - Transitional Agreement'. 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 18th May, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 31st August, 2011.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 The Company is profitable and has traded successfully over many years.
2 The Company refuses to provide the Union with a copy of the report of the assessor appointed to examine the Company's finances.
3 The Company has failed to prove an inability to pay the increases due under 'Towards 2016 - Transitional Agreement'.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 The Company's competitors in the UK and Northern Ireland enjoy the competitve advantages of lower wage rates and favourable exchange rates.
2 The Company's domestic competitiors have almost all introduced reductions in pay and numbers employed.
3. Concession of this claim will erode the Company's competitiveness and result in job losses.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that while the Union’s claim relates to the implementation of the first phase of the pay agreement associated with the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement, the matter was not jointly referred to the Court under the terms of that Agreement. Nonetheless it was agreed at Conciliation that the Company’s financial and commercial circumstances would be independently assessed in that context and the result of that assessment was provided to the Court.
It is also noted that the Company did offer to make a lump sum payment of 2% of pay (in two equal phases) in settlement of the Union’s claim. This offer was rejected by the Union and is now withdrawn by the Company.
Having regard to all the circumstances of this case, and having fully considered all of the information put before it, including the report of the independent assessor, the Court recommends that the dispute be resolved on the following basis: -
- The Company should pay a lump sum of 1.5% of basic pay on acceptance of this recommendation and a further lump sum of 1.5% on 1st March 2012 (basic pay is inclusive of shift premium where relevant for employees).
- The question of any future increases in pay should be the subject of discussion between the parties after the second phase lump sum has been paid. In those discussions regard should be had to all relevant considerations including any terms agreed between ICTU and IBEC following the expiry of the current Protocol for the Orderly Conduct of Industrial Relations and Local Bargaining.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
9th September, 2011______________________
JMcCChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Jonathan McCabe, Court Secretary.