FULL RECOMMENDATION
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : SHANNON HERITAGE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Haugh Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Mr McCarthy |
1. Payment of unpaid increments.
BACKGROUND:
2. This dispute could not be resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Workplace Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 1 September 2016 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 1 March 2017.
UNION’S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There are four increments outstanding and they should be paid with the appropriate retrospection/compensation.
2. The Company has stated from the outset that they would restore and pay retrospectively the outstanding increments if finances allowed.
3. The Company is financially stable and has shown huge profits.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company does not accept that it acted unilaterally in implementing a freeze on annual salary increments during 2009 to 2011.
2. The impact of the global recession on the business was severe and company consultations with staff and SIPTU from 2008 led to an agreement on pay reductions or reduced working hours for staff.
3. The financial position of the Company has deteriorated further with increased losses sustained in 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
Background to the Dispute
Shannon Castle Banquets and Heritage DAC T/A Shannon Heritage (“the Company”) operates a range of heritage tourism attractions. It employs approximately 137 people on a full-time basis and in or about 260 seasonal workers in the summer period. In 2009, the Company experienced financial difficulties and entered into discussions with the Union to achieve reductions in payroll costs. It is common case between the parties that a pay reduction of 10% was agreed in July 2009. The Company also sought the Union’s agreement to a freeze on annual pay increments at that time. The Union’s position is that it did not agree to this aspect of the Company’s request. In any event, no increments were paid when they fell due in in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Increments were paid in 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2016. No increment was paid in 2014. The Union is seeking retrospective payment of the increments it believes fell due for payment in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2014 on the basis that the Company’s financial position has improved considerably in the meantime. On the other hand, the Company submits that it recorded a loss of over €200k in 2015 and of over €400k in 2016. It estimates the cost of conceding the Union’s claim to be €1,456,000.00 with an ongoing annual payroll increase of €256,604.00 from 2017.
Recommendation
Having carefully considered the parties’ submissions, the Court recommends that the Company pays the outstanding 2014 increment with full retrospection to July 2014 within 8 weeks of the date of this Recommendation.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Alan Haugh
JD______________________
7 June 2017Deputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to John Deegan, Court Secretary.