Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92335 Case Number: LCR13742 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PALMVILLE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Rates of pay and manning levels.
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and the additional financial information provided by the Company
and is satisfied that as matters stand, the Company's offer of
P.E.S.P. 3% plus 3% cap is the maximum it can afford at the
present time. The Court recommends that this be accepted and
further recommends that the workers concerned consider at least
for a specified period of time a proposal of rotating lay-off.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92335 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13742
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. Rates of pay and manning levels.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which commenced operations in 1990, is a builders'
providers. It operates a franchise for Brooks Haughton in the
Waterford area. In early 1991, the Union submitted a claim on
behalf of the four workers concerned in this dispute, for rates of
pay in line with other workers in similar employment. In July,
1991, the Labour Court issued recommendation No. L.C.R. 13355
which was accepted by the Company. The recommendation provided
for an increase of #15 per week in the basic rates of pay,
inclusive of the first phase of the P.E.S.P. and that the parties
meet in January, 1992 to review the rates of pay in the light of
the Company's then trading position. No meetings took place in
early 1992. On 27th February, 1992 the Union received a letter
from the Company. The Company stated that due to its trading
difficulties it could see no point in meeting the Union.
Following a ballot of its members, the Union served notice of
industrial action to expire on the 21st April, 1992. On 13th
April, 1992, the Company agreed to meet the Union. The Company's
position was that, because of its poor trading position, no pay
increases could be considered without cutting overheads and that
it would be necessary to cut the workforce by one. The Union
refused to discuss a redundancy and as no agreement could be
reached, the matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. Conciliation conferences were held on 23rd April,
1992 and 14th May, 1992 and as no agreement could be reached, the
matter was referred to the Labour Court on 2nd June, 1992. The
Court hearing took place on 24th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. In submissions made to the Court prior to the issuing of
L.C.R. 13355, the Union set itself a target of three years in
which to bring the rates of pay of the workers concerned into
line with those of other workers in the industry. The
increase awarded by the Court was phase one of this target and
an agreement expected from the review due in January, 1992
would be phase two.
2. An increase of #35 per week inclusive of the 3% and 3% cap
of the P.E.S.P. is justified. This would give the workers
concerned a basic rate equal to about 75% of the basic pay of
other workers in the industry.
3. The workers concerned perform a sales function and have an
accurate understanding of the Company's financial performance.
It is impossible to believe that the Company has incurred huge
losses.
4. The workers concerned recognise that the Company took over
the site occupied by another builders' providers but that the
business had largely dissipated. They recognise that the
business has to be won back and what that means in terms of
attendance, punctuality and service to the customers. The
workers commit themselves to full co-operation with the
Company. For this commitment the workers must be treated
fairly. The current wage cannot be considered fair.
5. The proposal to reduce the workforce by one is by way of
retribution for the serving of strike notice.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company cannot under any circumstances afford to
increase the rates of pay outside the terms of the P.E.S.P.,
i.e., the payment of 3% plus 3% cap.
2. The Company is in a loss making situation and must cut its
workforce by one. It has a right to declare a redundancy.
Business dictates that such a redundancy is necessary.
3. The Company has put a reasonable proposal to the Union
regarding rotating lay-off.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties
and the additional financial information provided by the Company
and is satisfied that as matters stand, the Company's offer of
P.E.S.P. 3% plus 3% cap is the maximum it can afford at the
present time. The Court recommends that this be accepted and
further recommends that the workers concerned consider at least
for a specified period of time a proposal of rotating lay-off.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
18th August, 1992. Deputy Chairman
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.