Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92543 Case Number: LCR13896 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: M.D. O'CONNOR, SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of the second phase of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and the payment of arrears due under the first phase.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
additional information supplied by the Company, the Court is
satisfied that at the present time the Company is unable to make
the payments due under the terms of the P.E.S.P.
The Court therefore recommends that the claims be put into
abeyance for at least nine months from the date of issue of this
Recommendation, at which date the Court, in the light of the
financial situation then prevailing, will issue a further
recommendation on the claims.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92543 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13896
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: M.D. O'CONNOR, SONS AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of the second phase of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and the
payment of arrears due under the first phase.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in the poultry and associated
products trade. It employs 230 workers of whom 158 are
involved in the claim. Phase I of the P.E.S.P. fell due on
1st April, 1991. It was paid without any agreement on the
question of arrears on 1st July, 1991. Phase 2 of the
programme fell due on 1st April, 1992. On application by the
Union, the Company claimed that because of trading losses it
was unable to pay the second phase of the P.E.S.P. or the
arrears due under Phase I.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference took place on 26th
May, 1992. The Company claimed that trading losses made it
unable to concede the Union's claim, and allowed the Union to
examine its draft accounts on a confidential basis.
3. The Union examined the accounts and decided to pursue its
claims. A negotiated settlement was not possible and the
claim was referred to the Labour Court on 8th September, 1992.
A Labour Court investigation took place in Waterford on 24th
November, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Under the terms of the P.E.S.P. as it applies in the
Company, the workers are at an ongoing loss due to the
non-implementation of the increases due. They are only
seeking the rates of pay which are rightfully due to them.
The Union having examined the Company's accounts has decided
to pursue its claim. The Company's sales for the 2 years
ending June, 1990 and 1991 was #13 million per year. The main
financial problem of the Company arises from its pricing
structure. This is a management problem and the workers must
not suffer the consequences. Up to recently the Company was
operating profitably and it is unacceptable for it to seek a
pay pause as soon as market conditions deteriorate.
2. Current rates of pay have been negotiated and agreed by
the parties. They reflect the ongoing commitment of the
workers to the development and growth of the Company. The
workers are not prepared to allow an erosion of their living
standards by the Company reneging on its commitments under the
P.E.S.P. In the worst possible outcome, the workers might
consider a deferment of the increases provided the arrears
from Phase I and Phase II are paid at an early date in the
future.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company trades in an increasingly competitive industry
and is experiencing extremely difficult market and price
conditions. The indications are that there will be some
rationalisation and the Company's short-term objective is to
survive and maintain employment. Labour costs for competitors
are not nearly as high as those of the Company.
2. In recent years, the Company has made substantial losses
and in response has reduced all elements of its costs. In the
circumstances labour costs must be considered and to suggest
that further costs be added is not realistic. The Company has
tabled cost cutting measures for negotiation and hopes to
secure agreement from the Union with a view to maintaining
employment in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
additional information supplied by the Company, the Court is
satisfied that at the present time the Company is unable to make
the payments due under the terms of the P.E.S.P.
The Court therefore recommends that the claims be put into
abeyance for at least nine months from the date of issue of this
Recommendation, at which date the Court, in the light of the
financial situation then prevailing, will issue a further
recommendation on the claims.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
9th December, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.