FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : CARDO PUMPS LIMITED - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. 6 % Pay Claim
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a 6% pay claim. The Union's position is that the Company is profitable and is seeking the implementation of the pay increase which it contends became due for payment. The Union further contends that discussions in relation to the increase never reach finality as the Company continually seeks additional commitments from the workers prior to agreeing pay the increase. The Company has proposed an increase on different terms to what is being sought by the Union an in return for certain commitments which are unacceptable to the Union.
The matter was not 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 matter was referred to the Labour Court on 9th November, 2011 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 20th September, 2012
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3 1 The Company has already gained a pay freeze as the increases were not applied from the due date. It is unacceptable in a profitable Company that increases due to the workers are being continually withheld without meaningful discussions and agreement
COMPANY'S ARGUMENT:
4 1 The Company has been consistent throughout the process. It has proposed an increase on the basis of certain Key Performance Indicators (KPI's) being met by the workers going forward. Management will continue to engage in meaningful discussions and reach agreement with the Union on disputed issues
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court recommends as follows: -
The company should offer and the Unions should accept a pay increase of 4% in two equal phases. The first phase of 2% should be with effect
from 1st October 2011. The second phase should take effect on 1st October 2012. The agreement to expire on 30th September 2013.
The terms proposed by the company in its counterproposal to the Union's claim should be accepted subject to the following modifications: -
The proposal on sick pay should be the subject of separate discussions directed at reducing the cost of the scheme.
The Questions regarding the pension scheme should be dealt with separately.
With regard to the question of redundancy, it should be acknowledged that this is a voluntary arrangement and should be accepted as
discretionary on both sides.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
23rd October 2012______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.