INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2001
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
CHUBB IRELAND LIMITED
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Keogh
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. Re-hearing arising from LCR16956.
2. This is a re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation LCR16956 which was isued on 5th November, 2001. In LCR16956 the Court recommended as follows:-
"Where Companies have paid significantly in excess of the PPF, the terms of the Stability Enhancing measures of PPF allow such Companies to avoid further pay increases where such increases would put employment and competitiveness at risk.
It is for the employer to demonstrate to the Court that the additional increases already paid, combined with the payment of the 2%, would put the competitiveness and employment at risk.
On examination of the arguments made before the Court, and taking account of the Company's trading position, the Court recommends that the 2% should be paid with effect from 1st November, 2001. The issue of retrospection should be reviewed in June, 2002, in the light of the trading position of the Company at that time."
The Union argued that the amount of retrospection, (1st April, 2001 to 31st October 2001), involved in this claim was a "once off" payment and insignificant in the context of the Company's annual turnover. The Union claimed that the payment of retrospection would not put jobs and competitiveness at risk.
Management state that it is not in a financially stable position to absorb the cost of retrospection.
As the parties failed to agree on the issue of retrospection the dispute was referred back to the Labour Court on the 30th January, 2003, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the dispute on the 15th April, 2003, the earliest date suitable to the parties.
3. 1. The payment of the retrospection outstanding on the 2% increase is in full conformity with the terms of the Programme for Prosperity and Fairness (PPF).
2. As the Company has failed to demonstrate that payment of the retrospection involved would put employment and competitiveness at risk there exists no basis for the continued non-payment of the amount involved.
3. The Company has failed to produce documentary evidence in relation to its financial position and business performance.
4. 1. Staff costs are running at 80% approximately of turnover. Concession of the claim would cost around €80k. This would put the Company in a precarious position as it battles against a tough and demanding economy.
2. The Company is no longer able to maintain an equal footing in relation to price competition within the market because of low cost providers.
3. The trading position for the Divisions last year was extremely disappointing with the Company experiencing a number of contract losses due to client needs to reduce overheads.
4. The Court is asked to recognize the need to consolidate and protect the business and also the Company's continued and active relationship with the trade unions to advance the security industry for the mutual benefit of all shareholders.
The Court has considered the position of both sides. The Court recommends that the Company should make payment of the full retrospection of 2% due for the period 1st April, 2001 to 31st October, 2001 to those employees currently in employment, by 1st June, 2003.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
23rd April, 2003______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Larry Wisely, Court Secretary.