LCR20770

• The Unions said the Workers had not received an increase in pay since 2008. They were prepared to make a sacrifice including co-operation with change and flexibility etc., but that there was a fair and reasonable expectation that the Company would not seek to further diminish their current terms and conditions of employment.

• 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 19th February 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.

Both Unions accept that the financial and commercial circumstances of the Company are such that the viability of the enterprise is in serious question. In these circumstances the necessity for some adjustment in terms and conditions of employment cannot be in doubt although the scale of the adjustment required is in dispute.

Having considered the submissions of the parties the Court is satisfied that the final position put forward by the company, as per its letter to the Unions of 2ndApril 2004, is reasonable. However that proposal should be modified by the terms contained in this Recommendation.

The Company’s proposal of 2ndApril were expressed in the following terms: -

• “ 1. No Company bonus to be paid in 2014 or 2015
  • (a)Service and attendance bonus

    (b)Christmas bonus

    (c)Site, Department of Individual Bonus

  2. Reduction in Annual Leave entitlement by 1 paid day with the freezing of ongoing incremental service entitlement.

  3. Increase in normal working week by 1 unpaid hour to standardise at 40 hours per week. (All employees on full time contracts must complete a minimum 5 x 8 hr days working week at your workstation)

  4. Standardise break entitlement for all employees as – 1 x15 minutes tea break and 1 x 30 minutes lunch break. (Eliminating a 15 minute afternoon break for some employees)”

• 
  1.These proposals, when implemented, should be regarded as a temporary derogation from existing agreements rather than an amendment to those agreements. Consequently all existing agreements should remain in place.

  2.The derogation should remain in place until 31^stDecember 2015. All agreements and conditions of employment affected by this derogation should be restored, automatically and unconditionally, with effect from 1^stJanuary 2016.

  3.During the currency of this derogation the Company should be precluded from making or processing any further claims involving retrenchment of terms and conditions of employment.

  4.The additional one working hour per week referred to at point 3 in the company proposal referred to above, should be clearly understood as providing for an additional one unpaid hour per week rather than an extension of the standard working week. Consequently, there should be no adjustment to the hourly rate of pay of those to whom this proposal applies.

  5.During the currency of this derogation the Company should identify and implement all possible further non-payroll cost reduction measures so as to sustain the viability of the business.