Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD89388 Case Number: LCR12479 Section / Act: S67 Parties: TECHNICO COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 workers concerning an improvement in wages and conditions.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from both parties and in
particular taking into account the present position of the
Company, the Court recommends that:-
(a) the Union accept the Company's proposal for
payment of the wage increases set out in the
Programme for National Recovery, and
(b) the Programme for National Recovery be considered
to have commenced in January, 1987, for all other
purposes.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD89388 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR12479
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1976
SECTION 67
PARTIES: TECHNICO COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATED UNION OF EMPLOYERS)
AND
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 30 workers concerning an
improvement in wages and conditions.
BACKGROUND:
2. The last Company/Union agreement expired on 31st December,
1986. The Union, sought a meeting with the Company to discuss a
new agreement, however, a prolonged delay in getting a meeting
occurred. The Company, in April, 1988, applied the terms of the
Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.). The Union contends that
the P.N.R. was applied without consultation or agreement. The
Union lodged a claim for an increase in wages, an increase in
points on the incremental scales, the application of service pay
to clerical/administrative staff and an improvement in annual
holidays. The Company rejected the claim on the basis of its very
serious financial position. The Company was prepared to offer the
2nd phase of the P.N.R. subject to the Union agreeing that there
will be no disturbance claims arising out of a proposed move to
new premises. (The Company views a change of premises as
essential to survival). The Union rejected the offer and on 7th
March, 1989, the matter was referred to the conciliation service
of the Labour Court. No agreement could be reached at a
conciliation conference held on 14th April, 1989 and the dispute
was referred on 30th May, 1989, to the Labour Court for
investigation and recommendation. The Court investigated the
dispute on 23rd June, 1989.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. There has been substantial re-organisation in the Company
including large scale redundancy, contracting out of work,
reduction in canteen facilities and co-operation and increased
productivity from all staff. In these circumstances the
minimum the Company should do is apply the terms of the P.N.R.
from the date of the expiration of the last Company/Union
agreement, i.e. from 1st January, 1987.
2. Many of the workers are now at the top of the salary
scale. In view of the co-operation given by these workers the
Union believes a further 2 points should be added to the top
of the scale.
3. Currently, an annual payment of approximately #16 is made
to each member of the technical staff for each year of
service, subject to a maximum of 10 years service. This
discriminates against the clerical/administrative staff who
should also receive the payment.
4. Annual leave currently stands at 21 days plus 2 designated
days. In line with holidays generally this should be
increased to 25 days annually.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company implemented the terms of the P.N.R. in April,
1988, without challenge from the Union. Because of financial
difficulties the Company sought to make the implementation of
the 2nd phase conditional on a move to new premises. The 2nd
phase has in fact been implemented, without conditions, at the
due date.
2. The Company made a substantial loss for the 3 months to
March, 1989, and the proposed move to new premises was
intended to be part of an overall reduction in overhead costs.
(Full accounts were provided to the Court on a confidential
basis).
3. The Union's claims were rejected on the basis that Clause
4 of the P.N.R. prohibits further cost increasing claims.
Apart from the prohibition of Clause 4, the Company considers
that the existing pay and conditions compare very favourably
with those in the Dublin area.