FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : LINDE MATERIAL HANDLING (IRELAND) LTD - AND - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Hayes Employer Member: Mr Murphy Worker Member: Mr Shanahan |
1. Service pay and Christmas bonus.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute refers to service pay and Christmas bonus which were paid to staff in the Company. 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 3rd June 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 29th July 2015.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company without any prior consultation or negotiation, unilaterally took away service pay and Christmas bonus which had been in place for many years.
2. This is in breach of the Worker's main Terms and Conditions of Employment.
3. The outstanding service pay and Christmas bonus must be dealt with separately to any other pay negotiations.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to the downturn in the economy in 2008, the Company had to make cost savings which included making staff redundant.
2. There were no cuts made to the basic rates of pay nor to the overtime structure.
3. The Company would like to include service pay and Christmas bonus in the negotiations on a new pay proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of both parties to this dispute the Court finds as follows:-
1.The Company and the Union entered into a comprehensive Agreement in May 1984. The Agreement provides for the payment of an annual Christmas Bonus and the payment of service pay that was paid to staff when commencing their annual summer holidays.2.The payment of service pay to staff at the start of their annual summer holidays under that Agreement developed by agreement and custom and practice in the late 1990’s into an annual Holiday Bonus paid at the same rate and in an analogous manner to the annual Christmas Bonus to staff at the start of their annual summer holidays.
3.In 2008, as a result of the economic crash here and the international recession, the Company was not in a position honour those payments in full. Instead it substituted payments at a lesser level than those provided for in the Agreement.
4.The Company is recovering in line with the improving national and international economy and is seeking to conclude an agreement with the Union on pay and conditions of employment for the period 2015 – 2017.
5.The Union is seeking to restore the terms of the 1984 Agreement, as amended, as a prelude to engaging in those discussions.
6.This difference in emphasis and priorities has caused the parties to refer the instant dispute to the Court.
7.The Court is of the view that agreements should be honoured by all parties. However, no agreement is immutable for all time and parties must be willing to engage with each other to adapt and amend them to reflect the changing circumstances of the business and the economy.
8.In that context the Court notes that the Union is seeking to restore the 1984 Agreement and at the same time is seeking to increase the pay of the workers concerned. The Company on the other hand is seeking to replace the 1984 Agreement with something more fit for purpose while at the same time agreeing to address the Union’s pay claim.
9.In these circumstances the Court recommends that the parties divide the current discussions into two strands. In Strand 1 the Company should address the Union’s claim for the restoration of the terms of the 1984 Agreement. In Strand 2 the Company should address the Union’s claim for a pay increase and set out the changes it is seeking to make to the 1984 Agreement.
10.The Union should engage with the Company on both Strands simultaneously with a view to completing discussions before mid-November 2015. At that point any issue(s) outstanding under Strands 1 and or 2 should, if required, be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Brendan Hayes
CR______________________
25th August, 2015.Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ciaran Roche, Court Secretary.