Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92214 Case Number: LCR13683 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WOCO INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the introduction of a pension scheme.
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes there is acceptance bythe Compnay of a
commitment to provide a pension scheme.
The Court regrets that given the earlier attempts by the parties
to introduce a scheme this was not achieved, a situation which has
resulted in the loss of reckonable service for the employees
concerned. The importance of making provision to ensure employees
have a reasonable standard of living in retirement has been
particularly recongised in the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress and previous national agreements.
The Court recognises that the provision of a scheme has got to
take account of the ability of Company and employees to fund the
scheme.
The Court in this case, having taken account of the current
financial postion of the Company, considers the parties should
negotiate a scheme to be put into effect on 1st April, 1993.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Devine
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92214 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13683
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: WOCO INDUSTRIAL COMPONENTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the introduction of a pension scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Carrick-on-Shannon and employs 125
workers. It manufactures injected moulded rubber components for
supply to the European automotive industry. The Company/Union
agreement, negotiated in 1977, provided for the introduction of a
pension scheme. Following detailed discussions in 1978/79 the
Company proposed a scheme (details supplied to the Court) which
was subsequently rejected by the Union. The issue was again
raised by the Union in 1983, 1990 and 1991. The Company confirmed
its intention to introduce a pension scheme and proposed that this
matter be raised again in 1993. This was not acceptable to the
Union. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission on the 16th October, 1991. A conciliation conference
was held on the 26th February, 1992 but no agreement was reached.
The issue was referred to the Labour Court by the Relations
Commission on the 6th April, 1992. The Court investigated the
dispute in Donegal on the 13th May, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's position that it cannot introduce a pension
scheme at the present time on the grounds of financial
considerations and a downturn in business is not acceptable to
the Union. The Company has operated successfully in
Carrick-on-Shannon since the mid-seventies, and has benefited
by way of low wage increases under the terms of the P.N.R. and
P.E.S.P.
2. The Company gave a commitment to introduce a pension
scheme as far back as 1977 yet it has failed to do so. The
Company's proposal of 1980 was rejected by the Union because
of a plan to combine the sick pay provisions with the
permanent health insurance element of the scheme. The Company
has the financial resources to introduce a pension scheme and
should do so forthwith. It has made considerable savings by
not honouring the commitment sooner. In the meantime the
workers concerned have lost valuable pension service. Pension
schemes are a condition of employment in most good comparable
employments in the region (details supplied to the Court).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's commitment to the introduction of a pension
scheme must be viewed against the very difficult commercial
and economic circumstances facing the business. The Company
must emphasise that it introduced a comprehensive pension plan
in 1980 but the plan was rejected by the Union. The business
environment in which the Company operates has been subjected
to considerable pressure in the past few years. Despite this
the Company has provided well paid and sustained employment
for its workforce. Competition in the automotive industry is
intense and Management must keep costs at the present
operating level of 35%.
2. The Company is experiencing a serious problem in relation
to a ventilation shaft at the plant. Despite very substantial
expenditure, the problem is not resolved and considerably more
money must be spent without any guarantee of success. It is
not realistic on the part of the Union to expect the Company
to proceed with the implementation of a pension scheme at this
time. The Company proposal to examine the matter early in
1993 is reasonable. Clause 4 of the P.E.S.P. relating to a
Union's claim for the introduction of a pension scheme
provides that "negotiations shall be governed by the capacity
of the enterprise to absorb the cost involved". Such
negotiations should not take place until this Company is in a
position to absorb these costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes there is acceptance bythe Compnay of a
commitment to provide a pension scheme.
The Court regrets that given the earlier attempts by the parties
to introduce a scheme this was not achieved, a situation which has
resulted in the loss of reckonable service for the employees
concerned. The importance of making provision to ensure employees
have a reasonable standard of living in retirement has been
particularly recongised in the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress and previous national agreements.
The Court recognises that the provision of a scheme has got to
take account of the ability of Company and employees to fund the
scheme.
The Court in this case, having taken account of the current
financial postion of the Company, considers the parties should
negotiate a scheme to be put into effect on 1st April, 1993.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
17th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.