Pay deal uncertainty causes 'dilemma' for Labour Court

THE UNCERTAINTY surrounding the status of the national pay agreement signed last autumn is causing a significant dilemma for the Labour Court, its chairman Kevin Duffy has said.

Speaking at a conference organised by the specialist publication Industrial Relations News, Mr Duffy said there were serious questions as to whether there was an agreement in any real or meaningful way.

The Government has recently backed away from paying the terms of the deal, worth 6 per cent over 21 months, while employers’ group Ibec has called for it to be suspended.

The Construction Industry Federation rejected the deal almost from the outset.

Mr Duffy said the essence of any agreement was that the parties involved gave consent to it. It had to be asked whether there were currently two parties consenting to the agreement reached last year.

He said the issues arising from this uncertainty about the agreement was a matter of serious concern to the Labour Court.

Mr Duffy said one of the goals of the court had always been to interpret trends and to apply them, but not to make policy. One thing it had done since its foundation was to support collective agreements.

“How is an institution like the Labour Court to deal with a situation where trade unions, on one hand, are saying that we have a valid agreement, we are entitled to expect delivery and we are looking to the court to support us in that?

“On the other hand employers are saying things have changed and the world is a different place since the agreement was reached. They are saying that the agreement cannot be implemented and an agreement that cannot be implemented is not an agreement at all, it is frustrated,” he said.

Mr Duffy said the Labour Court was stuck in the middle.

“It is not for the court to say that in the current circumstances wages have to fall and that the agreement will have to be set aside or conversely that the agreement will have to be honoured as if you do not do so the consequences will come back to haunt you,” he said.

Ultimately, it was the responsibility of the social partners to deal with the issue of the status of the agreement, he said.

“Alternatively, you can ask the court to do a job for which it is not equipped and which would be to its detriment. If we have to do it, we have to do it but we could only do it by developing our own policy or by dealing with cases on an ad hoc basis. That is the least satisfactory way of responding to this situation,” he said.