A Tipperary-based transport company has been criticised by the Labour Court for failing to give workers a pay increase for nearly five years.
The court told Creagh Transport that its failure to provide for any pay increases over such a period was unsustainable, and could not be justified.
It recommended that the workers be given a 24 per cent pay rise within a month, partly backdated to last November when a claim was submitted.
The company runs a national and international haulage business from its head office in Silvermines. It also has a premises in Raheen, Limerick.
Some of its 57 employees joined SIPTU in February, but the union is not recognised by the company for collective bargaining purposes.
The union, however, took a case to the court under new legislation which provides for faster resolution to disputes at companies which do not recognise unions. The new procedures were agreed under the Sustaining Progress partnership agreement.
The court said it was precluded by law from recommending that Creagh Transport engage in collective bargaining with SIPTU. However, it rejected the company's argument that it was also precluded from recommending pay increases in line with those provided through national agreements.
The company had argued that workers did not have a statutory right to national wage increases, and that the court did not have the power to recommend their adoption. It was represented before the court by the employers' body, IBEC.
In its five-page recommendation, the court said the company had no fixed or formal system of reviewing the pay of its employees. "It is, however, accepted that employers have not received any increases in pay for between four and five years."
The company had claimed it was unable to pay increases over those years because of its commercial circumstances.
It had also contended that its pay rates were competitive relative to other similar enterprises.
The court said the company's pay arrangements, as described to the court, were lacking in transparency, and it was impossible to accurately compute the gross pay of individual employees.
"It is clear, however, that the rates have remained static over the period covered by the pay agreements associated with (the) PPF (Programme for Prosperity and Fairness) and Sustaining Progress."
The court said while pay increases provided by national agreements were not a statutory entitlement, they did represent an "appropriate reference point" for a fair level of pay adjustment.
It recommended that the company issue each employee with a statement in writing specifying their basic and gross pay rates, as well as other allowances.
Their rate of pay, it said, should be increased by the cumulative percentage provided by the PPF and Sustaining Progress agreements, which amounted to 24 per cent.
The company was also told to put in place a disciplinary and grievance procedure which provided for trade union representation in individual cases.
While the recommendation is not binding, SIPTU is entitled to apply for a binding determination by the middle of next month. The company would have the right to challenge the decision in the Circuit Court.
A spokesman for the company was unavailable for comment.
