FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : AN POST - AND - CWU DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Pay Increase
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute concerns a claim by the Group of Unions for a 6% 'cost of living' pay increase. 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 23rd July 2015, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
A Labour Court hearing took place on the 22nd September, 2015.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Postal staff have not received a pay increase since 1st August, 2008.
2. Staff have contributed very significantly to the successful implementation of major changes, while improving services to record levels.
3. Major ongoing savings have and continue to be achieved with staff affording full co-operation.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The core An Post Company is currently in a loss making cycle. The overall An Post Group (Core An Post Company and its Subsidiary companies) returned to a modest profit in 2014 after 2 years of losses.
2. The Company does not accept that there is any basis established for awarding a basic pay increase at present or indeed for the next year at the least.
3. Concession of any increase to basic pay at this time is not warranted and it would considerably worsen the financial health of the Company and thus cause further damage to the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes that an effective pay freeze has applied in the Company since 2008. In these circumstances it is understandable that the trade union group are now seeking a pay increase. However, there is no dispute concerning the difficult financial and commercial circumstances that the Company has experienced in recent years and is continuing to experience.
The Court notes that the financial projections made by the Company in relation to its core business (as set out in its submission to the Court) do not suggest any amelioration of the current position in the short term. But the impact of the price increase recently allowed by the Regulator cannot be fully known at this time. Moreover, there is a need for engagement between the Company, its shareholder and the regulator, where appropriate, on the contribution of pricing and growth to the future financial stability of the core business.
Against that background the Court does not consider it appropriate to make a definitive recommendation on the Unions’ pay claim at this time. Nevertheless, the Court believes that the continuance of the current pay freeze, as proposed by the Company, is not a viable proposition.
In these circumstances the Court recommends that the current dispute be resolved on the following basis: -
•The parties should engage in further discussion in respect of the range of additional efficiency measures raised in the course of negotiations at the LRC and seek to reach agreement on as many of these measures as possible.• The parties should identify and verify the potential of these measures to fund in part increases in the pay of the workers associated with this claim.
• The discussions should commence as soon as practicable and should conclude not later than three months from the date of this Recommendation. The assistance of the monitoring Group should be sought, if necessary, to facilitate agreement within that timeframe.
• If the parties fail to reach final agreement within the proposed time frame outstanding issues may be referred back to the Court for a definitive Recommendation. Should that be necessary the Court will facilitate the parties with an early resumption of the hearing.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
CO'R______________________
6th October 2015Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.