Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92209 Case Number: LCR13712 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: C.B. PACKAGING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a review of the bonus payment scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court having heard the arguments of the parties considers that
the erosion of the fixed sum to basic rate will eventually remove
the incentive of the scheme and will require to be addressed in
due course.
However, given the trading circumstances and the conditions of
P.E.S.P. the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92209 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13712
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: C.B. PACKAGING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a review of the bonus payment scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures paper sacks mainly for the
agricultural industry. It has a workforce of 83. In 1981 a
productivity agreement was entered into by the parties. Part of
the agreement was for the payment of a productivity payment of #25
per week which is related to basic pay and has increased over the
years. The agreement also included a bonus payment of #25 which
has remained static since 1981. The Union claims that this bonus
payment should be reviewed to take account of its decline in real
value since 1981. The Company rejects the claim. No agreement
could be reached at local level discussions and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission in June, 1990.
Conciliation conferences were held on 28th June, 1990 and 25th
March, 1992 at which no agreement was reached and the dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on 7th April, 1992 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 9th July, 1992. (the earliest date
suitable to the parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The bonus payment has decreased in purchasing power by
50% since 1981. Its value should be restored as a matter of
urgency. It is normal for productivity agreements to be
reviewed periodically to evaluate standards and pay rates.
This bonus payment should be reviewed in the normal way.
2. The Company is part of a group of companies which over
the past number of years have increased profits annually.
The Company is in a position to consider an increase in the
bonus payment given its decline in value since 1981.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is experiencing difficulties in the market
place and is operating within tight financial constraints.
It is not in a position to consider cost increasing claims
which are contrary to the terms of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
2. The workers concerned are well paid with earnings in
excess of the general industrial average. It was the
intention in the 1981 agreement that bonus payments would
remain static while productivity payments would be index
linked. The Company is not in a position to concede an
increase in the bonus payment at present.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having heard the arguments of the parties considers that
the erosion of the fixed sum to basic rate will eventually remove
the incentive of the scheme and will require to be addressed in
due course.
However, given the trading circumstances and the conditions of
P.E.S.P. the Court does not recommend concession of the Union's
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
21st July, 1992 ------------------------------------
A.S./M.H.
Deputy Chairman.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.