Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92139 Case Number: LCR13681 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of clerical workers, for payment of the local bargaining 3% payable under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
Recommendation:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties on the issues in dispute. The Court notes that the issues
before it raised by the Company have been the subject of a number
of previous Recommendations, none of which appear to have changed
the situation to any degree. It would seem to the Court that if
the changes required are of such critical importance they should
have been pursued much more vigorously and not simply raised on
every occasion the question of a salary increase arises.
Nevertheless in the context of the 3% claim under the P.E.S.P.,
the Company is entitled to seek easement of the impact. The Court
therefore recommends that the parties begin negotiations, each of
them having full regard to the terms of the clause under which the
claim is being processed.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92139 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13681
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
PARTIES: ROADSTONE PROVINCES LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of clerical workers, for payment
of the local bargaining 3% payable under Clause 3 of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.)
BACKGROUND:
2. In July, 1991, the Company and the Union met to discuss the
implementation of the second phase of P.E.S.P. and the 3% under
the local bargaining clause. At the time the Company stated that,
due to the trading difficulties facing it, it could not afford to
make any payment under the P.E.S.P. Subsequently the Company
agreed to honour payment of the second phase of the P.E.S.P., due
on 1st October, 1991, but refused to pay the 3% under the local
bargaining Clause (Clause 3) of the P.E.S.P.
The dispute was referred to the conciliation service of the
Labour Relations Commission on the 20th September, 1991. A
conciliation conference was held on 4th February, 1992 at which
agreement was not reached. The issue was referred to the Labour
Court on 26th February, 1992, under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court investigated the
dispute on 16th April, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the last few years the number of clerical staff has
been reduced from 330 to 80. Despite this great reduction
there has been no decline in productivity and the staff have,
at all times, co-operated with change within the Company. The
reward for this co-operation is the Company's blank refusal to
make payment of the local bargaining 3%. The Company has not
attempted to negotiate this 3%.
2. The Union cannot accept that the Company is unable to
afford to pay the 3%. From 1987 to 1991 the Company had an
exceptionally successful period of trading. This
profitability coupled with the exceptional staff commitment
qualifies them for payment of the 3% under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. must be self
financing but the Union has refused to address this issue, and
is not willing to make any concessions which might make the
implementation of the 3% possible.
2. The wages cost of clerical employees, to the Company is
already very high. Rates of pay of clerical staff are out of
line with the rates paid to similar employees of competitor
companies. Concession of the 3% under Clause 3 would create a
totally unrealistic situation and would affect the
competitiveness of the Company. The earnings of many clerical
workers exceed those of executives and managers whose duties,
hours and responsibilities are greater.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties on the issues in dispute. The Court notes that the issues
before it raised by the Company have been the subject of a number
of previous Recommendations, none of which appear to have changed
the situation to any degree. It would seem to the Court that if
the changes required are of such critical importance they should
have been pursued much more vigorously and not simply raised on
every occasion the question of a salary increase arises.
Nevertheless in the context of the 3% claim under the P.E.S.P.,
the Company is entitled to seek easement of the impact. The Court
therefore recommends that the parties begin negotiations, each of
them having full regard to the terms of the clause under which the
claim is being processed.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
_____________________
16th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
A.NiS/J.C.
Note
Enquiries cncerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Ms.
Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain, Court Secretary.