Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92517 Case Number: LCR13892 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: EUROWEST LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the payment of a 3% wage increase under the terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to conditions generally prevailing in the
industry and the particular circumstances which apply in this
firm, the Court is satisfied that concession of the 3% as claimed
is not warranted. However the Court does recommend that the
Company consider amending its existing bonus scheme so as to
provide the General Operatives the opportunity to earn bonus
independent of the activities of the boners and trimmers.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92517 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13892
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: EUROWEST LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the payment of a 3% wage increase under the terms of
Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company operates a beef deboning plant in Athy, Co.
Kildare. The plant consists of a commercial boning hall where
20 workers operate on a 5 day week, a contract boning hall
where 45 workers operate on a mixture of 3 and 5 day weeks and
a coldstore with 4 workers. The Company acquired the plant,
in September, 1991. An agreement was signed with the Union in
March, 1992.
2. The Union made a claim in March, 1992, for a 3% increase
under the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on 2nd June, 1992. The Company rejected
the claim as it maintained that the recently introduced
productivity bonus scheme included the local bargaining
element of the P.E.S.P.
3. No progress on the claim was possible at conciliation. A
further local meeting was held on 6th August, 1992. No
progress was made and the claim was referred to the Labour
Court on 27th August, 1992 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 13th November, 1992 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union and Company concluded an agreement in March,
1992 which provided for the processing of a Clause 3 claim
under the P.E.S.P. in the usual way. The Union attempted to
negotiate a 3% increase as provided for under Clause 3. The
Company refused to honour its commitment to negotiate on the
claim. The Company claimed that the bonus scheme was in place
of the local bargaining element of the P.E.S.P. This is not
acceptable to the Union and is at odds with the terms of the
P.E.S.P. Workers have received no payments from the bonus
scheme.
2. The workers' rates of pay are out of line with the
industry generally and with its sister Company in Sallins
(details supplied). There is no pension and sick pay scheme
in operation in the Company. Wage rates in operation are only
59.5% of the national industrial wage. The Union is willing
to negotiate on the increases due which should be achievable
as the Company has no Iraqi debt to service or Beef Tribunal
costs.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not "exceptional" within the meaning of
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. and therefore does not believe that
negotiations on the claim are appropriate. In the March,
1992 negotiations the Company offered a bonus scheme in place
of the Clause 3 provisions. The bonus scheme is framed to
yield a minimum of 3% over 1992. This is a reasonable
response to the Union's aspirations under Clause 3, having
regard to the economic and commercial circumstances of the
industry and the Company's position within the industry.
2. The Company has recently been set up and has large
borrowings. It is therefore affected by interest rate
fluctuations. Its exports are disadvantaged by currency
fluctuations and BSE (details supplied). In the future, "CAP"
reform and "GATT" will have to be dealt with in a very
competitive marketplace. In difficult trading conditions the
Company has acted more than reasonably to meet workers'
aspirations and to secure a competitive unit cost which is
vital for the future of the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to conditions generally prevailing in the
industry and the particular circumstances which apply in this
firm, the Court is satisfied that concession of the 3% as claimed
is not warranted. However the Court does recommend that the
Company consider amending its existing bonus scheme so as to
provide the General Operatives the opportunity to earn bonus
independent of the activities of the boners and trimmers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
8th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.