FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : EDENDERRY POWER - AND - BRENDAN LYNCH AND GROUP OF WORKERS (REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION) DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms O'Donnell |
1. 1.3.5% pay claim
2. Annual reviews
3. Collective Bargaining
BACKGROUND:
2. The dispute concerns the Unions claim for a 3.5% pay increase retrospective to 1st April 2014; the restoration of annual pay reviews and collective bargaining rights.
The workers referred their case to the Labour Court on the 23th November, 2015, in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 16th February, 2016.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1.It is a breach of the Company/Union Agreement 2013 that this issue has had to be referred under S 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969.
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Bord Na Mona who acquired the business in 2008. No pay increases have been awarded since 2007.
3.Prior to the acquisition, contracts of employment provided for annual pay reviews which occurred at the end of each financial year.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4.1.Since 22 December 2015 there is uncertainty and volatility in the market, this is at an extremely challenging time when fossil fuels are at unprecedented low levels.
2.The plant is now running at a significant loss.
3.The Company is prepared to re-engage under the terms of the Company/Union Agreement on receipt of a response confirming the Unions full commitment and adherence to the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The matter before the Court was brought by the Union under Section 20(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1969 and concerns a claim for a 3 ½% pay increase retrospective to 1stApril 2014; the restoration of annual pay reviews and collective bargaining rights.
The matters in dispute have been the subject of discussions at the Workplace Relations Commission. However due to a dispute over interpretations of the Company/Union Agreement 2013, it was not possible to have a joint referral of the case to the Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
It is clear from the documents open to the Court that the 2013 Agreement provides that“both parties are committed to best practice industrial relations and to exhaust all agreed internal and external procedures ….”including an acceptance that a recommendation of the Labour Court will be binding on both parties.
The Court notes that in an effort to bring a resolution to the matters in dispute including the impasse over the interpretation of the 2013 Agreement, the Workplace Relations Commission issued a set of proposals to the parties dated 30thOctober 2015.
Having considered the oral and written submissions, the Court is of the view that both parties should seek to return to the Workplace Relations Commission as a matter of urgency to seek a resolution of the matters in dispute. In making this recommendation, the Court is of the view that there should be no preconditions set to those discussions. If necessary any outstanding matters may be referred to the Labour Court as per the procedures under the 2013 Agreement.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
CO'R______________________
2nd March, 2016Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Clodagh O'Reilly, Court Secretary.