Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92575 Case Number: LCR13836 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: THE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the payment of the 3% wage increase under the terms of clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties in the
light of the changes in which the staff are required to cooperate
the Court is of the opinion that it would be to the benefit of all
concerned if the Association were to take up the Union's offer to
negotiate within the conditions set down in Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. The Court therefore recommends that the Association
commence negotiations directly. However the Court notes that the
Association made no provisions for the additional cost if any -
arising out of such negotiations in the current year. It
therefore further recommends that any additional payments which
might arise from such negotiations be postponed until next year.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92575 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13836
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: THE AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the payment of the 3% wage increase under the terms
of clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Association provides various services to motorists and
employs 197 workers. The Union represents 120
clerical/administration and 60 patrol workers who are employed
in Dublin and at various centres around the country.
2. The second phase of the P.E.S.P. was paid to the workers
on 1st January, 1992. Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. refers to local
bargaining and states inter alia:-
"Exceptionally, employers and trade unions may negotiate
further changes in rates of pay and/or conditions of
employment which may be for an amount up to but not
exceeding 3% of the weekly/monthly basic pay cost of the
group of employees concerned. Such changes may be
implemented, on a phased basis where appropriate,
commencing not earlier than the second year of the
Agreement in each particular employment/industry in the
private sector, including the commercial State-sponsored
bodies......
...... Negotiations under this Clause will take account
of the implications for competitiveness, the need for
flexibility and change and the contribution made by
employees to such change".
3. On 24th October, 1991 the Union wrote to the Association
requesting a meeting to discuss the implementation of the 3%
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Association rejected the
claim on the basis that it was not an exceptional organisation
within the terms of the P.E.S.P. and was therefore not covered
by the terms of Clause 3.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A local meeting was held on 21st January, 1992 at
the request of the Association. The meeting was requested to
allow the Association to clarify its position. No progress
was made and the dispute was again referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on 22nd January, 1992. A conciliation
conference was held on 11th September, 1992. The parties made
no progress at conciliation and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on 16th September, 1992. A Labour Court
investigation took place on 22nd October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. To date the Union has recorded 250 settlements with
employers under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. There are hundreds
more in the process of settlement. Clause 3 provides an
opportunity for workers to negotiate a 3% increase in addition
to the standard terms of the P.E.S.P. It has become a
standard feature of industrial relations negotiations in
recent times and virtually all employers accept the obligation
to at least attempt to negotiate the 3% increase.
2. The workers have shown that they are willing to negotiate
the implementation of the terms of clause 3 in a manner
consistent with that adopted in other employments. It is
inappropriate for the Association to go against established
practice by providing arguments about the word "exceptional".
The claim should be dealt with on its merits. If the
Association is found to be correct in its interpretation of
the P.E.S.P., the Union would be unable to make any
concessions on measures sought by the Association as there
would be no benefits available to workers.
3. The Association is profitable (details supplied).
Notwithstanding difficult economic circumstances its
membership has increased by almost 50% since 1987 and its
insurance division is the largest in the country. During the
P.E.S.P. agreement, the Association has gained economic
benefit by workplace changes conceded by its workers (details
supplied). This change is ongoing and the workers expect
their contribution to be recognised by payments under the
terms of Clause 3. The Association is capable of absorbing
the 3% increase which would be offset by change already
conceded and further change which might be conceded in the
context of negotiations.