Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD90677 Case Number: LCR13238 Section / Act: S67 Parties: W.J. DUFFY (BALLINA) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of 24 workers concerning retrospection on the third phase of the Programme for National Recovery (P.N.R.) and the introduction of a 39 hour week.
Recommendation:
6. Having regard to the present difficult financial position of
the Company and to the general problems in the trade, the Court
recommends that the Company implement the final phase of the
P.N.R. with effect from 1st October, 1990. The Court further
recommends that the parties discuss appropriate arrangements for
the introduction of the 39 hour week, which should come into
operation with effect from 25th March, 1991.
Division: CHAIRMAN Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD90677 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13238
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 67
PARTIES: W.J. DUFFY (BALLINA) LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of 24 workers concerning
retrospection on the third phase of the Programme for National
Recovery (P.N.R.) and the introduction of a 39 hour week.
BACKGROUND:
2. In early 1989, local discussions took place concerning the
payment of the second phase of the P.N.R. The Company indicated
that, due to the financial difficulties being experienced by the
Company, the increase in wages could only be met by an increase in
the price of its products. If and when that increase was
attained, the Company would then implement the wage increase. The
Union rejected the Company's position and the matter was referred
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. Following a
conciliation conference, the Company in October, 1989, offered to
implement the second phase of the P.N.R. from 1st July, 1989. The
Union said that it would accept the offer on the basis that
retrospection on the second phase be paid by a certain date and
that the Company commit itself to paying the final phase of the
P.N.R. on 1st April, 1990. The Company implemented the second
phase of the P.N.R. but declined to make a commitment on the third
phase.
3. In early 1990, the Union raised the question of the
implementation of the final phase of the P.N.R. which was due for
implementation from 1st April, 1990. The Company indicated that
it would not be in a position to pay the increase unless it got an
increase in selling price of its products. The Union rejected the
Company's position and referred the matter and the question of the
implementation of the 39 hour week, which the Company argued it
was not in a position to implement due to its financial position,
to the conciliation service of the Labour Court. No agreement
could be reached at a conciliation conference held on 31st August,
1990, and the matter was referred to the Labour Court, on 19th
November, 1990. In early December, 1990, there was a rise in
prices for the Company's products. Following discussions with the
Union, the Company implemented the final phase of the P.N.R. from
10th December, 1990, and the question of retrospection and the 39
hour week were referred back to the Labour Court for investigation
and recommendation. The Court investigated the dispute on 5th
February, 1991, in Galway.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The workers concerned are due 36 weeks back pay of the
increase given under the final phase of the PNR (#165.60 to
#172.80 per person). The Company by delaying implementation
of the increase has failed to honour its commitment to a
National Agreement. The Union would not be allowed to renege
on its commitment to the P.N.R.
2. The Company is expanding its range of products. The new
lines have been a substantial success and growth is
continuing. Four workers left the Company last year and were
not replaced. The resultant saving to the Company would cover
the payment of full retrospection for the remaining workers.
3. Other unionised bakeries in County Mayo have paid the
P.N.R. in full. This Company has made no realistic attempt to
address the issues in dispute. Over the last few years wage
increases have been withheld for long periods. This is
regarded as an attempt by the Company to delay implementing
legitimate wage increases and avoid paying full retrospection.
This will not be tolerated by the Union.
4. No discussion has yet taken place on the question of the
39 hour week. The Company are attempting to ignore this
Clause of the P.N.R. and the reduction in hours as long as
possible. This is unacceptable to the Union.
5. Workers in general now enjoy a reduced working week.
This Company will not be an exception. Other unionised
bakeries in County Mayo already operate a 38 hour week. When
the Company implements the one hour reduction they will still
be behind these other bakeries.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Unions claim for retrospection to 1st April, 1990, a
total of eight months, would cost the Company #10.285 if
conceded. The Company cannot afford this. (Financial details
provided to the Court).
2. Company has drawn the Union's attention to the
difficulties which the Company is experiencing and the
difficulties experienced in the industry nationally, where
lay-offs and close downs are occurring. It must be emphasised
that the majority of bakeries have not implemented the final
phase of the P.N.R. nor have they even sat down to discuss the
introduction of the 39 hour week.
3. If the Company is forced into a position where it is
obliged to pay retrospection and to introduce the 39 hour week
immediately, a decision would have to be made regarding the
reduction of the workforce in order to alleviate the financial
pressure being experienced by the Company. The cost of
implementing the reduction in hours is approximately 2.5%.
The Company is prepared to discus the introduction of the 39
hour week in July, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION:
6. Having regard to the present difficult financial position of
the Company and to the general problems in the trade, the Court
recommends that the Company implement the final phase of the
P.N.R. with effect from 1st October, 1990. The Court further
recommends that the parties discuss appropriate arrangements for
the introduction of the 39 hour week, which should come into
operation with effect from 25th March, 1991.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
25th March, 1991 ----------------
B O'N/U.S. Chairman