INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 2004
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Mr Duffy
Employer Member: Mr Doherty
Worker Member: Mr. Somers
1. New working arrangements.
2. The Company and the Union have been involved in discussions on various issues including ongoing change, team working, enhanced productivity, sick pay, overtime work, absenteeism, breaks, and pension scheme. The discussions continued under an Independent Facilitator and agreement was reached on a number of issues. However the issues of pay remained in dispute. The Union's claim for an increase of 18% in basic pay was rejected by Management. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 31st May, 2004 following which the parties agreed to recommend proposals for a 12% increase in three phases over two years.The proposals were rejected following a ballot of the members. A resumed conciliation conference was held in August, 2004 but agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 9th September, 2004 in accordance with Section 26 (1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing was held on the 17th September, 2004.
3. 1. It is nearly 20 years since workers received pay awards in excess of the National Wage Agreements. During this time the claimants have given increased cooperation, productivity and flexibility. Against a backdrop of increased production and increasing profits, workers have seen their basic pay fall behind the overall performance of the Company.
2. Workers wish to continue to show the same degree of commitment to the Company but this commitment must be reflected in a tangible increase in basic pay.
3. In relation the scheduling of the increases a sizeable lead in payment must apply.
4. The production measures sought by the Company and the manning levels proposed will more than adequately self finance the Union's claim for an 18% increase in basic pay.
5. The final outcome must reflect retrospection in relation to the financial reward of the claimants from inception of the claim i.e. February, 2004.
4. 1. The claimants are paid above the average comparative rates in the industry and in industry in general.
2. The Company entered into lengthy negotiations to agree a way of ensuring the Company could improve productivity levels and secure future investment in the plant, while addressing the Union's pay claim.
3. The Company is not in a position to pay any increase in pay without cost off-setting measures. To increase the percentage settlement any further is impossible as it will have significant implications for the future competitive position of the plant, whose current performance leaves it some way short of its budgeted targets for the year.
4. The claim is cost increasing and is precluded under the Sustaining Progress Agreement.
In the interest of bringing finality to this dispute the Court recommends that the Company revise its final offer as set out hereunder and that this be accepted by the Union.
In consideration of the Union accepting all of the productivity measures proposed by the Company in the context of its offer of 31st May, 2004, including cooperation with the time attendance system, the following phased increases should apply:
5% from 1st June, 2004
4% from 1st June, 2005
5% from 1st October, 2006
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd September, 2004______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.