LCR22526

FULL RECOMMENDATION

SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES :

KOSTAL IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)

- AND -

1000 MIXED GRADE WORKERS
(REPRESENTED BY SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION)

DIVISION :

SUBJECT:

1. 1. Pay Claim, 2. Employer Pension Contribution, 3. Christmas Bonus, 4. Attendance Bonus, 5. Service Awards, 6. Maternity/Paternity Awards & 7. Solidarity Payment During Pandemic

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 the 30 July 2021 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 15 December 2021.


RECOMMENDATION :

The Court has given very careful consideration to the written and oral submissions of the parties.
The Trade Union is pursuing a claim for a pay increase and six other enhancements to the remuneration, pension, maternity / paternity pay, bonus arrangements in the employment.

The employer for its part asserted to the Court that it is not in a position to add cost to the business. It asserts that its Irish operations have been loss making since 2019 and will be so again in 2021 and 2022. It contends that the nature of its business position is such that the focus is to sustain the business and viability.

Whereas the Trade Union seeks pay and other increases to apply in succession to the last agreement between the parties, the employer has responded to highlight the challenge of sustaining the business and securing the viability of its operations.

The Court has found it impossible to reconcile the different perspectives of the parties as regards the financial circumstances of the business. The Court is all the more concerned when it takes into account that this difference of view is held notwithstanding the fact that a financial expert of the Trade Union was facilitated with full access to the financial information of the employer on a confidential basis.

It is to be assumed that the purpose of this access was to allow that expert to validate or otherwise the grave assessment of the employer as regards its business circumstances.

The Court notes that the Trade Union has not shared with the employer the assessment of its financial expert and neither was that assessment shared with the Court.

In circumstances where the employer has submitted that issues of sustainability and viability are present in the business and that any addition of cost to the business will have severe implications, it is the view of the Court that no realistic bargaining in relation to the claim of the Trade Union is possible until a shared understanding of the facts of the matter and their implications is achieved.

The Court therefore Recommends that the parties should agree to the appointment of an independent financial expert who will be provided with all relevant financial information so as to be able, while observing normal commercial confidentiality, to make a report to the Trade Union and the employer wherein the financial circumstances of the business can be set out in the context of its ability to absorb cost in response to the Trade Union claims.

The Court further recommends that when that shared understanding is reached, the parties should engage further at the Workplace Relations Commission in an effort to achieve agreement and, should any matters remain disagreed following that engagement, the matter, with the assistance of the Commission, should be referred to the Court in the normal way for a definitive recommendation.

The Court so recommends.

NOTE

Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Shane Lyons, Court Secretary.