Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD88687 Case Number: LCR12168 Section / Act: S67 Parties: M. D. O'CONNOR SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 177 production and distribution workers for the application of the terms of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions from the parties,
recommends as follows:-
(1) The terms of the P.N.R. be applied with effect from 1st
April, 1988.
(2) In view of the present circumstances of the Company, the
increase be paid (a) weekly from 1st January, 1989, and
(b) payment of arrears due from 1st April, 1988 to
31st December, 1988, to be the subject of local negotiations
in June, 1989.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Collins Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD88687 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12168
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: M. D. O'CONNOR SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
IRISH TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 177 production
and distribution workers for the application of the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the poultry business and is based
in Cappaquin, County Waterford. The last wage round in the
Company expired at the end of March, 1988, and the Union sought
the implementation of the P.N.R. from 1st April, 1988. The Union
also sought the application of the P.N.R. to the production bonus
operated by the Company. The claim was rejected by the Company on
the grounds of it's financial circumstances and the level of it's
wage costs. On 6th July, 1988, the claim was referred to the
conciliation service of the Labour Court. At a conciliation
conference held on 31st August, 1988, the Company proposed that an
increase in wages should be reviewed, without commitment, in
January, 1989. The Union rejected the proposal and the matter was
referred on 6th September, 1988, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 23rd November, 1988, in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The P.N.R. states that increases 'shall' be applied, not
'may' be applied, This clearly indicates a firm obligation on
the Company to implement the increase. The Union does not
have an option to claim in excess of the terms and it is
reasonable to expect that the Company should not have an
option to refuse, delay or reduce the terms agreed nationally.
3. 2. There is no provision in the P.N.R. for pleading inability
to pay. It already takes account of the pleading of those
companies which are experiencing difficulty by providing an
extremely low increase.
3. The workers concerned have already made concessions to the
Company under the 26th and 27th wage rounds by agreeing to a 6
month pay pause and foregoing the application of increases to
the bonus payment. The Agreement on the bonus payment
provides for bonus earnings to maintain their relationship
with basic wage levels. On all previous occasions, (except
where otherwise agreed by the Union), the increases applicable
to basic wages were also applied to the bonus.
4. The Union requests the Court to verify the financial
position put forward by the Company and that should the Court
find that it is sufficiently serious to warrant the Union's
consideration of a deviation from the terms of the P.N.R.,
then such deviation should not involve foregoing any element
of the increases due. At the very worst the workers might
consider a deferment of the increases, but this would involve
the payment of the arrears due from 1st April, 1988.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The industry in general, and the Company, is experiencing
severe pressure arising from over-capacity and increased raw
material costs. The Company's limited objectives are to hold
onto customers and employees. The Company must also make the
necessary capital investment to keep up with developments in
production, plant and equipment.
2. Substantial losses have arisen in the business for the
first time in the Company's trading history. (Details
provided to the Court). It is the Company's view that this
level of losses can be sustained for a 12 month period. After
that the picture is unclear.
3. The Company's wage structure and labour costs are out of
line with it's competitors. The Company pays almost #70 more
per week (inclusive of bonus) than it's primary competitor.