Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD9271 Case Number: LCR13588 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: NORDEX MANUFACTURING (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the Company is not currently in a position
to pay the terms of the PESP and has no means of making firm
forecasts as to when it may be able to do so.
The Court, therefore, in the circumstances, recommends that the
claim stand and it adjourns the case until October next unless in
the meantime the Company finds itself in a position to pay the
claim. ~
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.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD9271 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13588
THE LABOUR COURT
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: NORDEX MANUFACTURING (IRELAND) LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 38 workers in the manufacture of
light fittings. Thirty of the workers are members of the
Union. Payment of the first phase of PESP was due to be paid
to the workers on 1st June, 1991. The Company pleaded
inability to pay. The parties failed to resolve the dispute
at local negotiations and the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission.
2. A conciliation conference was held on 12th December,
1991. The Company had at local negotations offered to
implement phase 1 of the PESP from 1st January, 1992 but at
conciliation withdrew the offer claiming that its financial
difficulties were continuing. The Company also sought to
discontinue certain benefits which the workers enjoy (details
supplied). The Union opposed the Company's attempts to
discontinue benefits and sought full implementation of the
PESP.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court on 25th
January, 1992 under Section 26 of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took place in Wexford
on 18th February, 1992.
UNION ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers employed by the Company earn gross wages in
the range £150 - £220 per week. The workers are at an ongoing
loss due to the non-implementation of the PESP. At
conciliation, the Company introduced its proposal to change
the Company/Union agreement in relation to certain benefits
(details supplied). The Union is not willing to accede to
this proposal. The benefits were implemented as elements of
agreements on wages and conditions which are in place for
several years.
2. The Company has not given a commitment to pay the
increases due under the PESP. The workers are prepared to
accept a deferment of the PESP if the Company honours its
terms in full.
COMPANY ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Sales have declined significantly in a relatively short
time. Losses for the years 1990 and 1991 are considerable
(details supplied). Competition and recession in the building
industry are the main causes for these losses.
2. Clause 2 of the PESP agreement allows for the
circumstances of the Company to be taken into account (details
supplied). The Company is not in a position to implement the
terms of the PESP at this stage or to give a commitment for
their payment at some future date. At conciliation, the
Company did state that, if certain fringe benefits could be
discontinued, it would allow for a change in its position on
the PESP.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties, the
Court is satisfied that the Company is not currently in a position
to pay the terms of the PESP and has no means of making firm
forecasts as to when it may be able to do so.
The Court, therefore, in the circumstances, recommends that the
claim stand and it adjourns the case until October next unless in
the meantime the Company finds itself in a position to pay the
claim. ~
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.