Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD91641 Case Number: LCR13583 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union on behalf on 57 workers for an increase of 4% over and above the 1st phase of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress.
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties, does not find grounds for concession
of the Union's claim and consequently rejects it.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD91641 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13583
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: MITSUI DENMAN (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union on behalf on 57 workers for an increase
of 4% over and above the 1st phase of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is part of a Japanese-based group,
manufactures materials for dry batteries for export around the
world. The Union has claimed a 4% increase over and above the
1st Phase of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.) on the basis of the extra productivity already given
by the workforce and because the rates paid by the Company are
less than those paid by comparable companies in the area. The
Company rejected the claim, and on 28th May, 1991, the issue was
referred to the conciliation service of the Labour Relations
Commission. No agreement was reached at a conciliation
conference held on 6th June, 1991 and, on 29th November, 1991,
the Commission, in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990, referred the matter to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation. The Court
investigated the dispute on 5th February, 1992 in Cork.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is one of eight chemical/pharmaceutical
manufacturing companies based in the Little Island
Industrial Estate. The other seven companies have paid
increases in wages which were greater than those provided
for by national wage agreements. This Company paid only
the increases due under these agreements. Basic rates paid
by all eight companies were almost equal when the estate
was established.
2. Some companies in the area have expanded since they
opened and have employed extra workers over the years.
The Company has invested in more modern production methods.
Efficiency has increased while the number of workers
employed has decreased.
3. Over the years, the Company has put forward
rationalisation plans, viability plans, etc., on a regular
basis. The workers have always been prepared to consider
these plans and have always honoured agreements made with
the Company. The Union believes that the Company has,
given the workers' co-operation, done quite well over the
years and, therefore, seeks this increase so that the
workers' pay will be brought back into line with that of
fellow workers in the area.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim breaches Clause 5 of the P.E.S.P.
which states "that no cost increasing claim other than
those provided for in Clauses 1, 3 and 4 will be made on
employers during the currency of the Agreement".
2. The pay of the workers concerned is fair and
equitable. Between 1991 and 1992 average hourly earnings
have increased by 15%. Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P., which
applied since 1st January, 1992, will cost an additional
£36,000 per annum for the workers concerned. As no major
production shut-down is planned for this year, average
earnings for the workers concerned will be in the region of
£456 per week. This level of pay is in the upper quartile
of earnings in manufacturing industry. In addition, the
workers enjoy benefits such as pension, a life assurance
and disability benefits plan, medical facilities etc..
3. As the Company sells its products internationally
in open competition, it must remain competitive. Payroll
is the Company's single largest cost. The cost of this
claim would add a further £48,000 per annum to payroll
costs and would lead to knock-on claims from other groups
within the Company. Current profitability is
unsatisfactory and concession of the claim will add further
to cost pressures and the Company's ability to compete
successfully in the international market-place.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the oral and written
submissions of the parties, does not find grounds for concession
of the Union's claim and consequently rejects it.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
11th March, 1992
B.O.N./N.Ni.M. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Brian O'Neill, Court Secretary.