Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91249 Case Number: LCR13355 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PALMVILLE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning basic rates of pay of four workers.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the oral and written submissions of the
parties the Court recommends as follows:
1. That effective from 1 March, 1991 the basic rates be
increased by #15 per week, inclusive of 1st phase of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
2. That in January, 1992 the Company and Union meet to
review the rates of pay in the light of the Company's
then trading position.
3. That the 39 hour week be introduced at the end of 1991.
4. That the Company and the Union discuss the drafting of a
procedural agreement and the introduction of the
check-off.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91249 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13355
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1990
PARTIES: PALMVILLE LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning basic rates of pay of four workers.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a builders providers and came into
operation in October, 1990. It took over the premises of a
builders providers business which had ceased trading. Three
of the former employees of that business were offered
employment with the Company while one worker was recruited
from outside. Their rates for a basic 44.5 hour week were as
follows:-
2 sales assistants at #96 per week
1 sales assistant at #76 per week
1 machinist at #144 per week
Having taken the workers into membership in early 1991 the
Union served a claim for a 39 hour week and rates of pay in
line with other builders providers (about #180 per week).
Following local discussions the Company agreed to introduce a
basic 40 hour week with overtime payments as appropriate. No
agreement could be reached on the Union's claim in respect of
basic rates of pay and the matter was referred on 5th
February, 1991 to the Conciliation Service of the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on
21st February, 1991 at which the Company offered an increase
of #10 per week in basic rates from 1st March, 1991 inclusive
of the first phase of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.). The Union rejected the offer.
No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred on 7th
May, 1991 to the Labour Court by the Labour Relations
Commission in accordance with Section 26(1)(a)(b) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990.
2. The Union's claim is as follows:-
(a) Effective form 1st January, 1991 a #15 per week
increase in all basic rate.
(b) Before the end of 1991 a review of pay rates in the
light of the Company's trading position.
(c) The terms of the P.E.S.P. to take effect on 1st
January, 1991.
(d) The Company and the Union meet to draw up a proper
procedural agreement.
3. The Company's offer is as follows:-
(a) #10 per week increase from 1st March, 1991 inclusive of
the first phase of the P.E.S.P.
(b) A review of pay rates in 1992 in the light of the
Company's trading position.
(c) The introduction of a 39 hour week at the end of 1991.
4. The Court investigated the dispute in Waterford on 19th
June, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is part of the Brooks Group which has
outlets throughout the country. The basic rates in Waterford
are substantially out of line with those in the rest of the
group. The Company should either apply the Brooks Group
rates or alternatively the average builders providers rate in
Waterford which is approximately the same (about #180 per
week before P.E.S.P.).
2. The Union recognises that the Company is recently
established and took over a builders providers business which
closed due to trading difficulties. The Company has made a
substantial capital investment in the new premises and the
Union recognises that it needs time to re-establish business
on a commercial basis. In the circumstances the Union's
claim is reasonable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates a franchise from Brooks Haughton.
It has a right to negotiate its own rates of pay.
Comparisons with rates of pay in other establishments with a
much higher turnover are invalid.
2. The Company took over a builders providers business and
employed 3 ex-employees of the business at higher rates of
pay than they have previously earned. The workers agreed to
those rates in October, 1990.
3. The Company needs time to establish itself in the market
place. It is expected that it will take at least 3 years to
reach a break even situation. The general recession in the
building trade has meant that the expected levels of turnover
have not been reached and will not be reached in the
foreseeable future.
4. The cost of implementing the Company's offer would be
approximately #7,000 and represents a significant increase in
Company costs. The Company could not, in the first year of
its operation, sustain an increase higher than this without
seriously jeopardising its future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the oral and written submissions of the
parties the Court recommends as follows:
1. That effective from 1 March, 1991 the basic rates be
increased by #15 per week, inclusive of 1st phase of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
2. That in January, 1992 the Company and Union meet to
review the rates of pay in the light of the Company's
then trading position.
3. That the 39 hour week be introduced at the end of 1991.
4. That the Company and the Union discuss the drafting of a
procedural agreement and the introduction of the
check-off.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd July, 1991 Tom McGrath
A.S. / M.O'C. _______________
Deputy Chairman