Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92354 Case Number: LCR13715 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CROWN BERGER IRELAND - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for payment of a 3% pay increase to clerical staff under clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
Recommendation:
5. The Court does not consider the proposal for payment of 3%
under the local bargaining Clause of P.E.S.P. as set out in the
I.R.O.'s report attached to the Company's submission and dated
3/3/1992 as unreasonable and is of the view that they should be
accepted by the Union subject to one amendment - i.e. that the
operative date be 1st January, 1992.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92354 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13715
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CROWN BERGER IRELAND
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for payment of a 3% pay increase to
clerical staff under clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
BACKGROUND:
2. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. provides for local bargaining on
rates of pay for an amount up to but not exceeding 3%. Such
changes may be implemented not earlier than the second year of the
P.E.S.P. in each particular employment. Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P.
was due in the Company on 1st January, 1992. In late 1991 the
Union claimed implementation of a 3% pay increase under clause 3.
The Company responded that it was willing to enter into
negotiation on payment under Clause 3 provided there was a quid
pro quo involved. The quid pro quo required is the formalising of
a flexibility arrangement and the signing of job descriptions by
the clerical staff involved. The Company paid the 3% to the
non-Union clerical staff from 1st January, 1992 as it claimed it
had received full flexibility from them and they had signed job
descriptions. The Union claims that the Clause 3 should be
implemented for its members without any quid pro quo. Non-Union
clerical staff had received the 3% and were not required to extend
their level of co-operation and flexibility beyond that which
currently exists. The Company claims that it has not received
full co-operation and flexibility from the Union in the past.
It wants to formalise the existing flexibility and job description
to ensure difficulties do not arise in the future. No agreement
was reached at local level discussions and the matter was referred
to the Labour Relations Commission in January, 1992. A
conciliation conference was held on 3rd March, 1992 at which the
Industrial Relations Officer (I.R.O.) put forward a proposal dated
3rd March, 1992 which provided for the formalisation of the
existing flexibility and payment of 3% under clause 3 from 11th
February, 1992 (details supplied to the Court). The Company
accepted the I.R.O. proposal but it was rejected by the workers
concerned. A further conciliation conference was held on 15th
April, 1992 at which no agreement was reached and the matter was
referred to the Labour Court on 16th June, 1992 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on 13th July, 1992. (the earliest date
suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The local bargaining clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. clearly
indicates the right to insist on the pay increase without any
additional contribution from workers. The Company should pay
the 3% increase from 1st January, 1992 without any
conditions.
2. The workers are agreeable to a continuation of the
existing on-going co-operation but are opposed to any
extension. They do not have any major difficulty with the
job descriptions. However, as the non-union clerical staff
received the 3% increase under clause 3 from 1st January,
1992 without any concessions, the Company should concede the
same increase to the Union.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. is very clear on the point that
negotiations under the clause "must take full account of the
implications for competitiveness, the need for flexibility
and change, and the contribution made by employees to such
change." What the Company is seeking in terms of an
extension of the flexibility agreement is normal practice in
most companies.
2. Negotiations on clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. were held prior
to the commencement of phase 2 on January 1, 1992. In
December 1991 the company offered the full 3% in return for
agreement on an extension of the flexibility agreement. The
non-union clerical staff did not have a problem with the
flexibility agreement as they are already operating the
system. Had the unionised clerical staff agreed, they too
would have benefited from the 3% from the beginning of phase
2 i.e. 1 January, 1992.
3. The Company does not accept the Union's argument that
there is no need for a formalised flexibility agreement as
full co-operation is already being given by the workers. If
this flexibility is already custom and practice then their
should be no difficulty with putting such an agreement in
writing.
4. The Company has acted in a reasonable manner by offering
to provide the maximum 3% increase under clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. on a quid pro quo basis. The Company merely wants
to formalise the existing flexibility to ensure difficulties
do not arise in the future.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court does not consider the proposal for payment of 3%
under the local bargaining Clause of P.E.S.P. as set out in the
I.R.O.'s report attached to the Company's submission and dated
3/3/1992 as unreasonable and is of the view that they should be
accepted by the Union subject to one amendment - i.e. that the
operative date be 1st January, 1992.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
21st July, 1992 Evelyn Owens
A.S./M.H. -----------------------------
Deputy Chairman.
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Alfie Smith, Court Secretary.