Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9268 Case Number: LCR13587 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CELTIC SEAFOODS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute regarding the payment of the terms of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by both parties
and the additional information provided by the Company and is
satisfied that no funds to pay the retrospective claim made by the
Union are available to the Company at this time.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9268 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13587
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CELTIC SEAFOODS LIMITED
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute regarding the payment of the terms of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in the processing of fish
(herring roe) for the export market. The Company employs 35
workers full time and between 120 and 260 workers on a
temporary basis during the winter period. The Company's
principal markets for products are Japan (300 tonnes), Germany
(3,500 tonnes) and Holland (1,500 tonnes). Japan is by far
the most profitable market, accounting for 55% of total
revenue, (Germany 30% and Holland 15%).
2. The first phase of the PESP was due to be paid to the
workers from 1st April, 1991. The Company pleaded inability
to pay at that time. The workers acknowledged the Company's
financial position and it was agreed that the financial
position would be monitored in succeeding months. The Company
received an order for product and the first phase of PESP was
implemented from 1st November, 1991.
3. The Union has sought retrospection for the months of
April, May, September and October. (The workers were on
lay-off from June to September). The Company pleaded
inability to pay the £9,000 required to settle the claim. The
claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 12th December, 1991. No
resolution was possible and the dispute was referred to the
Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 28th
January, 1992. A Labour Court investigation took place in
Waterford on 19th February, 1992.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers acknowledged and appreciated the Company
position on 1st April, 1991, when it was not in a position to
pay the first phase of PESP. The Company was asked by the
Union to implement the first phase prior to Christmas and
to discuss retrospection later. The workers have a right to
have full retrospection paid to them and are aggrieved that
the Company is seeking to renege on its commitments under
the PESP. The amount involved is small and the vast majority
of staff were not employed for all of the period for which
retrospection is claimed. The workers were patient in waiting
for the implementation of PESP and are now only seeking their
rightful entitlements. This is a contentious issue because of
employment trends within the Company.
2. Despite previous trading difficulties the increases
under the Programme for National Recovery (PNR) were paid in
full by the Company on the due dates annually. Workers are
now aggrieved that despite similar trends this year they will
not be paid their retrospection. The claim is now more urgent
as the second phase increase of 3% is due from 1st April,
1992.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Two years ago severe recession in the market for the
Company's product began (details supplied). Oversupply had
led to massive price competition and erosion of profit. The
Company has suffered continuous losses (details supplied),
since it was taken over by its present owners in 1986. At
this stage the Company is practically insolvent and although
it has paid the 4% increase due under the PESP, there are no
funds available to finance the retrospective period. Unless
there is a dramatic improvement in the Japanese market, the
Company will have to seriously consider its future viability.
2. Wages paid by the Company are at the higher end of the
rates paid in the industry. The Company faces competition in
Ireland from 5 other large companies and 14 smaller ones where
labour costs are very low. The factory is built to process
herrings only and the Company is thus dependent on a specific
market and a luxury product which has suffered dramatic volume
and price decline. At present, the more product the Company
produces, the higher its losses will be.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered the submissions made by both parties
and the additional information provided by the Company and is
satisfied that no funds to pay the retrospective claim made by the
Union are available to the Company at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
-----------------
9th March, 1992
J.F./U.S. Deputy Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.