Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91290 Case Number: LCR13428 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 25 workers for implementation of phase 1 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions in the case the Court,
whilst acknowledging the serious financial situation in which the
Society finds itself, is of the opinion that, pending action on
future developmental changes, the long terms interests of all are
best served by the payment of phase 1 of the P.E.S.P. terms.
However, in return the Society is entitled to full co-operation in
introducing the other measures it has proposed to reduce ongoing
costs and achieve viability.
This course the Court recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91290 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13428
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ROYAL DUBLIN SOCIETY
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf of approximately 25 workers for
implementation of phase 1 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1991, the Union sought implementation of Phase 1 of
the P.E.S.P. which was due in April, 1991. The Society indicated
that it was not in a position to pay the increase because of
difficult economic and commercial circumstances. This was not
acceptable to the Union and on 15th March, 1991, the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. No agreement could
be reached at a conciliation conference held on 24th May, 1991,
and on 4th June, 1991, the Commission in accordance with Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990, referred the matter
to the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The
Court investigated the dispute on 11th July, 1991.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. An increase in pay is essential in order to help to
maintain the workers' standard of living. The claim is in
accordance with a National Agreement which has been
implemented in most employments.
2. The Union has made a number of suggestions to the Society
which it feels would be helpful in resolving the Society's
present difficulty. These suggestions have not been responded
to (details to the Court). The Society's income at present is
approximately #3.25m of which #1.8m is generated by commercial
activities. The Union believes that this is where the
Society's future lies. A range of uses could be found for
some or all of the Society's property even allowing for the
desire to maintain the integrity of the Society and the need
to retain the essential character of the buildings, e.g.
Leisure Centre, Equestrian Centre, Folk Village, Amusement
Park, Summer School etc.. These "ideas" should be flushed out
and evaluated with professional help.
3. Staff levels have been reduced from 40 in 1983 to 21 in
1991. This has been a major saving for the Society. A deal
has been negotiated with Shamrock Rovers which has resulted in
additional revenue.
4. The Society has an obligation under the P.E.S.P. to pay
the monetary terms of the Programme. The workers concerned
are in no position to accept a wage freeze. They have already
accepted low increases under the P.N.R. They have made
sufficient sacrifices in the recent past and it is
unreasonable to expect them to continue making sacrifices.
SOCIETY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Society has experienced severe financial difficulties
in recent years. In the period 1976 to 1990, the Society has
sustained operating losses in all but two years and now has a
resulting deficit of over #3m. If the Society is to survive
and develop financial stability for the future, the budget
deficit situation must be addressed and turned around.
2. The Society's 1991 Budget (details provided) imposes
cost-cutting measures right across the board on both payroll
and non-payroll items in an effort to break even. On the
payroll side, the required savings cannot realistically be
achieved through redundancies alone. A pay freeze is required
on all staff and management salaries if budget targets are to
be attained as an intrinsic element of a viability plan.
3. Since the early 1980's competition has increased
substantially within the principle sectors that the Society
operates. The Society has also been unable to turn around the
level of attendance at the financially crucial two major shows
- the Spring Show and the Horse Show. The Society is not in a
position to pass on extra wage costs to the customer and in
view of the weak financial position the Society cannot absorb
these extra costs.
4. The Society is currently exploring all avenues of
potential for its survival and development with the assistance
of consultants. An interim report of findings and proposals
is due shortly.
5. The Society acknowledges the aspirations of its staff in
terms of wage increases. However, staff must recognise the
Society's extremely difficult financial situation. The
reality is that the Society does not have the finances to pay
phase 1 of the P.E.S.P. at the present time. The process of
rationalisation at the Society is absolutely necessary for
survival. No cost cutting measure has been taken lightly by
management and the decision to implement a pay freeze is a
crucial element in the efforts to break even and achieve
stability for the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions in the case the Court,
whilst acknowledging the serious financial situation in which the
Society finds itself, is of the opinion that, pending action on
future developmental changes, the long terms interests of all are
best served by the payment of phase 1 of the P.E.S.P. terms.
However, in return the Society is entitled to full co-operation in
introducing the other measures it has proposed to reduce ongoing
costs and achieve viability.
This course the Court recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_________________________
4th October, 1991. Deputy Chairman
B.O'N./J.C.