FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : ONE DIRECT (SUBSIDIARY OF AN POST) - AND - CWU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay Claim For 2012.
BACKGROUND:
2. One Direct was established in 1999 as a wholly owned subsidiary of An Post and employs 147 staff. Since 2009 a general pay freeze has been in place, the Union is seeking to revoke the freeze but Management reject the claim as unwarranted.
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 8th August, 2014, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 26th September, 2014.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The increase in basic pay claim was lodged in November 2012 when the Company was in a financially sound position after an acquisition that strengthened it's customer base..
2. Staffhave fully cooperatedthusallowing a smooth transition before, during and after the acquisition, despite the work burden becoming more onerous.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since the last pay increase the cost of living as measured by Consumer Price Index (CPI) has gone down. A pay increase in a semi-state company would have potentially knock-on effects.
2. The market is very competitive and a pay increase would render the Company non-financially viable. There remains in place a performance bonus and a commission sales based system which allow the staff to increase their income.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that the Company's response to the Union's claim was and remains that a pay increase in any amount is unwarranted. In consequence of that position there has been no real engagement between the parties on the claim.
It is the Court's view that the appropriate rate of pay increase, if any, in this employment should be broadly in line with pay movements established by collective bargaining in analogous or broadly similar employments. It is for the parties to identify what those employments are and what, if any, pay adjustments have been agreed in those employments. In the absence of such an exercise having been undertaken in negotiations it is not possible for the Court to issue a reasoned Recommendation on the merits of the Union's claim at this time.
The Court recommends that the parties enter into negotiations on the basis outlined above. Any agreement reached on a general pay adjustment should take effect from 1st January 2015 and be for such duration as may be agreed.
Should the parties fail to reach agreement they may return to the Court for a definitive recommendation on the merits of the Union's claim.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
20th October, 2014______________________
JFChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Foley, Court Secretary.