FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : THE CURRAGH RACECOURSE (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Mr Doherty Worker Member: Mr Nash |
1. Cost Savings – Pay Reduction
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Curragh Racecourse (represented by IBEC) and SIPTU in relation to management's proposal to reduce the basic pay of its staff. Management contends that it has incurred significant losses as a result of the economic downturn and that the cuts are necessary to ensure continued viability into the future.
The Union's position is that it is not accepting the unilateral cuts in basic pay.
It contends that there are other options open to management other than a straight pay cut.
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 28th May, 2010 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 4th June 2010.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3 1 If Management contend that it is necessary to introduce pay cuts in order to remain viable, it should agree to an independent assessment of its financial position. The Union put this proposal forward and it was rejected. In such circumstances, the Union does not accept the need to introduce the pay cuts as outlined by management.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4 1 There has been a dramatic reduction in the numbers of racegoers attending the venue in recent times. In addition, there have been significant losses incurred in other areas of the organisation. It is, therefore, reasonable that all staff be asked to accept a small pay reduction to ensure the organisations viability going forward.
RECOMMENDATION:
On the information currently before it, the Court does not see a basis upon which it could justifiably recommend a reduction in the basic pay at this time.
The Court recommends that the parties should seek to identify other initiatives which could realise an equivalent level of savings in staff costs. The parties should also review the position at the end of 2010.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
22nd June 2010______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.