FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : HENKEL IRELAND LTD (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION UNITE THE UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Final phase of the Towards 2016 Agreement
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and the Trade Unions in relation to the non-payment of the final phase of the Towards 2016 Agreement. This arose following clarification from a mediator following Labour Court Recommendation 20522.
- The Company contends that the payment was disposed of as part of a mediated settlement in 2010. The Unions reject this position and claim that the payment remains outstanding.
- The dispute was not resolved at local level and was referred to the Labour Court on 10thOctober 2013 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4thDecember 2013.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The content of the Mediator’s clarification is specific “ I am entirely satisfied that the terms of the June 2010 mediated agreement did not include, or dispose of, the second, 2.5% phase of T16.”
2. Other non-union groups have had increases and management have received payment of bonuses while union groups have received virtually nothing.
3. The Company have reneged on the payment of phase 2 of T16 despite a written agreement/commitment to honour T16 in full. The Company have never pleaded inability to pay.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. As part of the mediator’s negotiation in 2010, the union alleged that there were nine breaches to the comprehensive agreement, one of which was the non-payment of the final phase of T16TA. The outcome of this negotiation was a 1.25% increase in return for changes. The company consistently maintained that the June 2010 agreement comprehended all and any outstanding pay claims.
2. Management subsequently implemented the terms of the agreement in good faith and in the two year period between the implementation of the terms agreed under the mediator.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the clarification which the parties obtained from the agreed mediator on foot of Labour Court Recommendation 20522.
The Court has taken account of the commitment previously given by the Company to honour the Toward 2016 Agreement in full. The Court has also taken account of the fact that a previous increase of 1.25% was paid by the Company. Finally, the Court is conscious of the need to bring finality to this matter in the interests of promoting an improved industrial relations environment within the employment.
Having regard to these considerations the Court recommends that the Company pay the disputed increase of 2.5% with effect from the date of this Recommendation and that this be accepted by the Unions in full and final settlement of the claim before the Court.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CR______________________
9th December, 2013Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.