FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CLIFFS OF MOHER CENTRE LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Hearing arising from LCR19772
BACKGROUND:
2. The original issue before the Court concerned a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for parity of pay, sick leave and premium payments with Local Authority Employees. The Workers concerned are employed by the Cliffs of Moher Centre Limited. The Company was set up to operate the Cliffs of Moher Visitor Centre. The building and surrounding area are owned by Clare County Council. The Union argues that their members are de facto Employees of the County Council and that the Company is no more than a shell Company whose membership is also linked to Clare County Council. The Company argues that it is a private legal entity which is entirely distinct and separate in legal personality from Clare County Council.
A Labour Court hearing took place on 23rd March 2010 and Recommendation LCR19772 was issued which stated that:-
"Given the complexity of this task and the potential for disagreement between the parties they may wish to engage the services of an agreed appropriate and independent expert to assist them with this process. In the event that agreement cannot be reached before July 1st 2010 the parties jointly may refer the matter back to the Court for further consideration."
A Labour Court hearing took place on 5th August 2011 following which external Independent Financial Assessors were appointed to carry out a financial assessment of the Company. The Financial Assessor's Report was issued and is dated 13th October, 2011.
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 dispute was referred to the Labour Court in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 14th June 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is seeking the application of LCR19772 from May 2010 and contend that the claim is sustainable given the revenue streams generated by the Centre.
2. This claim is now 5 years old and we urge the Court to reaffirm its finding and grant parity of pay and conditions with Local Authority Employees.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in a position to implement LCR19772 as to do so would render the business unsustainable and jeopardise the continued employment of it's 56 Employees.
2. The Company does not accept that the Local Authority should be used as the Comparator for pay and condition purposes.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court in LCR19772 set out its view of the appropriate rates of pay that should apply in this Company
However the independent financial assessment recommended by the Court has established that the present financial position of the Company could not sustain a move to those pay rates or conditions of employment in the short to medium term.
The Court notes Management's willingness to negotiate an improvement in pay and conditions consistent with the prudent management of the Company's finances. The Court also notes the willingness of the Union to recognise that the Company does not have the financial capacity to meet its claim in full at this time.
In this context and taking into account the Financial Assessor's report, the Court recommends that the parties engage in discussions with a view to agreeing an interim improvement in pay and conditions of employment. The Court further recommends that the matter be reviewed again two years after the conclusion of this round of negotiations in the context of the circumstances then prevailing.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
20th August, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.