FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 20(2), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1969 PARTIES : IRELAND WEST AIRPORT KNOCK (REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION) - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Ms Jenkinson Employer Member: Ms Cryan Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The case before the Court concerns a dispute between the Employer and the Union on behalf of its members employed in various roles at Ireland West Airport Knock. The dispute relates specifically to the Union's claim for a pay increase as previously sought under the terms of the Towards 2016 Agreement. The Employer rejects the Union's claim arguing that it is not in a financial position to concede the Union's claim. The Employer contends that its current financial position is reinforced by the publishing of two seperate independent financial assessor's reports which confirm the Employer's inability to fund a pay increase. Agreement could not be reached at local level.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on the 21st January, 2013 in accordance with Section 20(2) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1969 and both parties agreed to be bound by the Recommendation of the Court. A Labour Court hearing took place on the 10th April, 2013.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. While the Union does not dispute the Assessor's report findings they are appealing to the Company through the Labour Court to make some payment to their members.
2. The Union asserts that the Employer will remain in a position to plead inability to fund a pay increase.
3. The Union contends that its members have more than facilitated the Employer by means of a longstanding pay freeze,and reductions to overtime and working hours.
EMPLOYER'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Employer recognises the efforts and contributions of its employees however it has no alternative other than to maintain its stance on its inability to fund a pay increase.
2. The Employer is of the view that security of employment and future viability of the Airport are of the utmost importance at present. A pay increase is therefore not an option.
RECOMMENDATION:
This dispute came before the Court for a binding recommendation by way of a referral from the Labour Relations Commission under Clause 1.11 (ii) of the Pay Agreement Associated with the Review and Transitional Agreement of Towards 2016. The Employer is pleading inability to pay increases falling due under the Agreement.
An Assessor was appointed by the parties under the terms of the Agreement to examine the economic, commercial and employment circumstances of the Employer. In a report presented dated 13thSeptember 2012, the Assessor concluded that“the company has established its case in pleading inability to pay”the terms of the Agreement. The findings of the Assessor were accepted by both parties. However, the Union on behalf of its members submitted that if the Employer was not in a position to pay the full terms of the Agreement then it sought some element of the increases.
In accordance with the terms of Clause 1.11 (ii) of the Pay Agreement the Court is required to give due weight to the conclusions of the Assessor and must recommend that the claim be conceded in its totality or not at all. The Court has examined the assessors report in detail and has no reason not to accept its findings.
In these circumstances the Court cannot find in favour of the Union’s claim and accordingly upholds the Assessor’s report.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Caroline Jenkinson
16th April 2013______________________
SCDeputy Chairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Sharon Cahill, Court Secretary.