Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92202 Case Number: LCR13693 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: UNIPLUMO LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union for a pay increase.
Recommendation:
5. Given all of the circumstances of this case as outlined in the
oral and written submissions of the parties, and in particular the
constraints of the pay provisions of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress, the Court does not find grounds for
concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92202 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13693
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: UNIPLUMO LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union for a pay increase.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is located in Kenmare and is engaged in the
production of potted plants for the Irish market. The claim
concerns 5 workers. The Union first submitted the claim for an
increase of #18 per week in the basic pay of the workers in 1989.
The Company offered to implement the terms of the Programme for
National Recovery (P.N.R.) and subsequently the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The Union rejected the
offer. The issue was referred to the Labour Court on the 14th
December, 1990. Conciliation conferences were held under the
auspices of the Labour Court on the 4th April, 1991 and the Labour
Relations Commission on 23rd January, 1992 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 31st March, 1992. The Court
investigated the dispute in Killarney on the 11th June, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The basic pay of the workers concerned is #132.00 per
week. This rate of pay is very low and should be increased
substantially. In support of its claim the Union refers to
Clause 6, Annex 2 Appendix A of the P.E.S.P., relating to the
Construction Industry where special arrangements were made to
cater for workers on low rates of pay. Clause 6 provides that
negotiations would take place within the parameters of Clause
3. Increases paid to craftsmen under that clause amounted to
#43.70. These increases were added to a basic rate of #169.34
p.w..
2. The Union's claim for an increase of #18, when seen in the
context of the increases above, is very reasonable. If this
rate had been conceded by the Company in 1989 the following
rates would apply - Phase 3 of P.N.R. - #154.20, Phase 1 of
P.E.S.P. - #160.36. The remaining increases to be negotiated
in line with further increases under P.E.S.P. The Company's
rates do not relate favourably to comparable employments in
the area (details supplied to the Court). The Union's claim
is fair and reasonable and should be conceded by the Company.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. Since 1989 the Union has claimed increases in excess of the
terms of both the P.N.R. and P.E.S.P. The Company was not in
a position to provide increases above the terms of these
agreements. It has not been profitable since 1990. Over the
past number of years there has been a swing away from
traditional plants and it is difficult to predict trends.
Consequently, forecasting sales and results is very difficult.
Competition is keen from both Irish and Continental growers
and plants can be imported cheaper than can be produced in
Kenmare, making it more flexible and rewarding to purchase
ahead.
2. The Company has offered to apply both the terms of the
P.N.R. and P.E.S.P. It is not in a position to pay more than
the National Agreements. Increases above these terms would
pose questions for the future viability of the Company. If
the basic rate was increased by the actual terms of the P.N.R.
and P.E.S.P., the workers' wage would be #156 per week. This
rate compares favourably with comparable employments.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Given all of the circumstances of this case as outlined in the
oral and written submissions of the parties, and in particular the
constraints of the pay provisions of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress, the Court does not find grounds for
concession of the Union's claim.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
_____________________
26th June, 1992. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.