FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ANORD CONTROL SYSTEMS LIMITED - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Hearing arising from LCR19738.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company was established in Dundalk in 1969 and has grown to become a market-leading manufacturer and supplier of power, automation control systems and LV Switchgear in both the UK and Ireland. The dispute stems from the Company's decision to reduce the pay and conditions of new entrants which the Unions claim is in breach of the comprehensive Company/Union Agreement and collective agreements. The Unions also contend that the failure of all parties to engage properly in a process locally, as described in LCR19738, has only compounded the situation.
The dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of number of Conciliation Conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached, the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 11th July, p2012, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 23rd October, 2012.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. All pay rates for production staff are covered by the Company/Union Agreements. Not only has the Company reduced the pay rates for new entrants but also ceased paying service-based increments due to Workers.
2 For there to be a continuing good industrial relations environment, both sides must engage locally to resolve disputes. This can only be achieved by all sides abiding by and adhering to Agreements. To this end the Company must restore both the pay rates and service increments to previously agreed levels.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has been only marginally profitable over the past eight years being subject to fluctuations in the construction sector over those years. The Company is susceptible to UK price competition and the Euro/Sterling exchange rate resulting in the current unprecedented and very serious financial situation.
2. There is a history of positive engagement between all the parties, such as the successful implementation by agreement of the Survival & Sustaining Plan and the additional initiatives implemented in the interim. There is recognition by all the parties of the absolute necessity of finding a solution to the current crisis.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court arises from Labour Court Recommendation 19738 which recommended:
- “…noting the willingness of both sides to enter discussions without preconditions, the Court recommends that they re-engage directly with each other with a view to arriving at an agreement that recognises the causes and consequences of the trading difficulties facing the Company and adjust the cost base in a manner that maximises the possibility of long term sustainable employment in the Company.”
Following the issue of Recommendation 19738 all parties entered into the discussions to address the adjustment in the Company’s cost base. While these discussions have not been completed, they did yield some savings for the Company, however, the savings made have not reached the targets set to remain competitive and maximise the possibility of long term sustainable employment.
The Court notes that from the discussions that took place between the Company and the TEEU, a draft set of proposals emerged, however, the first set of proposals were rejected by the members and were then subsequently amended. A new draft set of proposals emerged dated 4thNovember 2010 (as provided at Appendix 6 of the Employer’s Submission) which have not been brought to conclusion.
Similarly, from the discussions which took place with SIPTU, an agenda (as specified at 3.26 of the Employer’s Submission) was agreed which has also not been brought to conclusion.
At this point the Court is of the view that the parties should immediately re-engage with each other to re-establish the positions they had achieved as referred to above (Appendix 6 and 3.26) and in the course of that re-engagement the Court recommends that the parties should discuss the Company’s stated requirement to adjust pay rates for core staff.
The Court recommends that these discussions should commence with immediate effect and all parties should report back to the Court on the progress made by no later than21st December, 2012.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
22nd November, 2012______________________
JFDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.