FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : GLEN DIMPLEX IRELAND (REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Ni Mhurchu |
1. Reduction in bonus payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns the introduction of a new basic pay and bonus rate for new entrants following the reduction from €8.65 to €7.65 per hour to the Minimum Wage Act in 2011. This 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 21stDecember 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10thApril 2012.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the Company/Union agreement, a ballot of the Unions members was conducted on Wednesday 12thJanuary 2011 regarding the Company’s proposal for a new rate for new entrants of the Minimum Wage plus the maximum of 100% of the bonus scheme.
2. In March 2011, the Government announced it would be reversing the cut to the Minimum Wage to €8.65 per hour.
3. In July 2011 the Minimum Wage was returned to €8.65 per hour. A few weeks later some new entrants noticed that their bonus payments had been reduced. This was queried by the Shop Steward but the Company continued to pay the reduced bonus rate.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a difficult market and must continue to maintain a competitive edge in order to keep the manufacturing of their products in the Republic of Ireland.
2. The new rate and bonus structure resulted in a whole new business opportunity for the Company and this enabled it to acquire new business.
3. If the Company had not achieved a competitive edge in January 2011 the result would be an ever reducing operation, and an unviable manufacturing business that probably would have closed in late 2011.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has carefully considered the submissions of both parties to this dispute.
The Court finds that the manner in which the Company applied the increase in the National Minimum Wage in 2011 to the affected workers did not comply with the terms of the Collective Agreement in place at that time. Such a breach of a Collective Agreement, freely entered into by the Company, cannot be condoned or excused. The Court accordingly recommends that the Company formally commit to meet its obligations under the terms of that agreement in all future dealings with its workforce.
While the Court finds some merit in the Union’s claim regarding the substantive issue, it notes that the Company maintains that to concede to it in part or in full, with or without retrospection, would have serious implications for both employment levels in the factory and the viability of the plant.
In this context, the Court recommends that the parties engage with each other, with the assistance of technical financial expertise if appropriate, with a view to agreeing a mutually acceptable resolution to this dispute.
In the event that the parties cannot reach agreement within six weeks of the date of this Recommendation, the parties should refer all outstanding matters back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
15th May, 2013.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.