FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LIEBHERR CONTAINER CRANES LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 2.5% Pay Increase as part of the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Unions in relation to the application of a 2.5% pay increase which formed part of the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement. The dispute relates specifically to approximately 330 members of staff currently employed in the Company's crane manufacturing plant based in Killarney, Co. Kerry. The Unions contend that this payment is owing to their members since 2009 and argue that the Employer is in a financial position to apply the pay increase to their members, however, it refuses to do so. The Employer rejects the Unions' claim arguing that as a result of the effects of the current economic climate and in order to sustain competitive advantage it is not in a position to concede the Unions' claim.
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 on the 28th January, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 2nd May, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer has not pleaded inability to apply the pay increase. The Unions therefore assert that the Employer should pay the increase to their members.
2. The Unions contend that the claim was submitted when the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement was still in existence and the Employer should abide by its terms accordingly.
3. The Unions maintain that the Workers involved in this dispute have cooperated with many aspects of change and cost-saving measures and are entitled to this pay increase.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS
4. 1. The Employer is facing increased competition on a global scale and is not in a position to concede the Unions' cost-increasing claim.
2. The Employer asserts that it is met with uncertainty in terms of its future viability and contends that concession of the Unions' claim would have a detrimental effect on its financial position.
3. The Employer contends that there is a strong business need to minimise costs in order to remain competitive.
RECOMMENDATION:
The issue before the Court concerns the Unions' claim for payment of phase three, 2.5% due from 1st January 2009, undertheTowards 2016 Review and Transitional Arrangement (“the Agreement”).
The Company submitted that payment of the increase would impact severely on its competitive position and on employment and submitted instead a proposal to pay the increase due in three phases commencing in 2012 with the final phase being paid in 2014 in return for a number of concessions comprising of a mixture of normal ongoing change and cost-offsetting measures as outlined in the enclosure with its letter to the Unions dated 18th November 2011.
There was no engagement on these proposals as the Unions sought the 2.5% increase on an unconditional basis. Furthermore, the Unions referred the Court to a number of outstanding issues which it had with the Company.
The Court notes that the Unions’ claim for the 2.5% pay increase was made on 2nd December 2008 when the Agreement was still in existence. The case has been referred to the Court under Clause 1.11(iii) of the Agreement.
Having considered the submissions of all parties the Court is of the view that further engagement is required to resolve the claim before the Court and to deal with all outstanding matters. Therefore, the Court recommends that the parties should engage in meaningful negotiations on the eleven points listed in the enclosure with the Company's letter dated 18th November 2011 referred to above and on the five outstanding matters referred to by the Unions (listed in the Company's Submission, Appendix 3, page 10). The Court recommends that these discussions/negotiations should be facilitated by the Labour Relations Commission and should be completed by no later than 31st July 2012.
In the event that there are any outstanding matters they may be referred back to the Court.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
21st May 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.