INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
CROWN PAINTS IRELAND LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
- AND -
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
Chairman: Ms Jenkinson
Employer Member: Mr Murphy
Worker Member: Mr McCarthy
1. Pay claim
2. This case concerns a dispute between the Company and Union in relation to a pay claim. The Union is seeking a 3% pay rise per year for 2015 and 2016. Management contends that it is unable to award a pay increase at this time but is willing to enter into discussions with the Union in early 2016. The matter was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a number of conciliation conferences under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 27th March 2015 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 13th May 2015.
3 1 The Union acknowledges the difficult trading position that the Company has experienced over the past number of years. However, the Company's position has improved greatly in recent times and production figures have also increased significantly. In those circumstances and on the basis that the workers have not had any pay increases since 2008 and have actually had reductions in pay since then, the Union considers its claim to be reasonable and appropriate.
4 1 The Company has experienced serious trading difficulties over the past number of years. It is accepted that production levels have increased in recent times but competitive pressures remain and currently Management cannot sustain any additional costs associated with the Union's claim.
The issue before the Court concerns a claim by the Union on behalf of General Operatives for payment of a 3% increase in basic pay from 1st April 2014 and a further 3% increase from 1stApril 2015 for a period of twelve months.
The Court notes the dispute between the parties over the Company’s financial circumstances. While the Union acknowledges that the Company experienced a severe drop in sales between 2009 and 2013, it maintained that since then, when account is taken of the contribution the Dublin Company makes to the Company’s Northern Ireland business, the Company is profitable.
The employer submitted that while its performance has improved it is still loss-making and indicated that it was willing to review the claim in 2016.
Having considered the positions of both sides the Court is of the view that an increase in pay is warranted and recommends a 2% increase in basic pay with effect from 1stJanuary 2015 followed by a further 2% increase in pay with effect from 1stJanuary 2016.
The Court so recommends.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
25th May 2015______________________
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.