FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ODLUMS (PORTARLINGTON) LIMITED (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Pay claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of approximately twenty seven of its members in relation to the retrospective application of a 2.5% pay increase as part of the final phase of the Towards 2016 Transitional Agreement. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for the 2.5% pay increase which it contends, should have been implemented since January, 2009 in accordance with the Agreement. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that the Agreement has now expired and there is no obligation on the Employer to award a 2.5% pay increase. Furthermore, the Employer contends that it is not in a position to concede the Union's claim given the competitiveness of the environment in which it operates.
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 27th October, 2011, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th September, 2012.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Employer is in a financial position to concede the Union's claim for a 2.5% pay increase.
2. The Union maintains that the pay claim was formally lodged with the Employer before the Agreement expired.
3. The Employer has not claimed any inability to award the currently sought pay increase.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Agreement expired before the Union lodged its pay claim. Accordingly there is no onus on the Employer to award a pay increase.
2. The Employer is operating in an extremely competitive marketplace and is not in a position to concede the Union's claim.
3. The Employer's main objective is to protect employment and to ensure the viability of the Company going forward. This objective would not be met if the Union's claim is conceded.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of its members for the application of phase three, 2.5% due from 1st January 2009, underTowards 2016 Review and Transitional Arrangement (“the Agreement”).
The Company submitted that it was not in a position to increase rates of pay in the face of the competitive difficulties facing the business. It told the Court that following several loss-making years the bulk mill in Dublin Port was closed in March 2012 with 26 redundancies and the Cork Mill had closed in 2009. Furthermore, it submitted that as the Union’s claim was not made until July 2010, and the Agreement became inoperative after 23rdDecember 2009, the Court was prohibited from adjudicating on claims under the Agreement.
The Union stated that a claim under the Agreement was referred at a meeting with management on 28thJuly 2009 and, as the Company are not pleading inability to pay, that the claim should be conceded.
Having considered the submissions of both parties the issue of whether the Agreement was extant at the time the claim was submitted is noted by the Court. The Court has had regard to the IBEC and ICTU Protocol for the Orderly Conduct of Industrial Relations and Local Bargaining in the Private Sector, agreed in 2010, which makes it clear that the maximisation of sustainable employment is the most important objective to be secured in the economic downturn.
Therefore, the Court recommends that the Union's claim should be addressed through a review of pay having regard to the necessity to safeguard the protection of employment of the workers concerned and the sustainability of the business for the future. On that basis the Court recommends that the parties should enter into meaningful discussions with a view to reaching agreement on identifying measures which will lead to cost savings for the Company. In the event of agreement any adjustments in pay should take effect from the date of agreement between the parties.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
31st October 2012______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.