Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92456 Case Number: LCR13838 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED - and - IRISH CEMENT GROUPS OF UNIONS |
Dispute concerning the implementation of an increase of 3% under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and the "Pot" payment.
Recommendation:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties in this case and has noted previous Labour Court
recommendations in relation to the "Pot Payment". It is clear to
the Court that the issue of the "Pot" prevented any realistic
negotiations taking place on the implementation of Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. In order to allow such negotiations the Court considers
that the "Pot" payment issue has to be addressed in the first
instance.
The Court accordingly recommends that both sides accept that the
existing Pot payment of #1,700 p.a. be retained for the time being
under the conditions presently applicable, the matter to be
reviewed again in 12 months time.
On acceptance by both parties of the above,
discussions/negotiations on the implementation of Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. should re-commence and be processed through the normal
procedures up to and including a further Labour Court referral if
necessary.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92456 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13838
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: IRISH CEMENT LIMITED
and
IRISH CEMENT GROUPS OF UNIONS
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of an increase of 3%
under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.) and the "Pot" payment.
BACKGROUND:
2. Between 1984 and 1986 negotiations on a rationalisation
programme resulted in a rationalisation savings agreement ("Pot")
which provided for the nett savings accruing from 210 redundancies
to be divided three equal ways (i.e. customer, Company and
workforce). The agreement was to be reviewed in 1989. In 1988
the Unions claimed an extension of the "Pot" agreement in respect
of a further 120 redundancies under the Company's Survival Plan
(1987). In L.C.R. 12206 the Labour Court recommended, inter alia,
that "the present dispute could best be resolved by the inclusion
of all redundancies up to July (inclusive) 1988 in the "Pot" and
no further additions to "Pot" from that date".
3. The present value of "Pot" is #1,700 a year payable every
July. In May, 1990 the Unions claimed an increase of
approximately #700. The Company rejected the claim and sought to
buy out the agreement. The Labour Court, in L.C.R. 1343
recommended that the parties enter into negotiations to buy out
"Pot". The Unions rejected the recommendation in August, 1991.
4. The Unions re-entered a claim for an increase of #700 in
"Pot" (with effect from 1990) and an increase of 3% under Clause 3
of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). The
second phase of P.E.S.P. was paid on 16th September, 1991. The
Company rejected the claim for an increase in "Pot" and tabled a
proposal to buy it out. In January, 1992 the Company wrote to the
Unions outlining its proposals under Clause 3 whereby it sought a
number of concessions in return for a 3% increase. The Unions
rejected both the Companys' proposals.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission on
11th March, 1992. Conciliation conferences were held on 8th
April, 16th July, 24th July and 29th July, 1992. (In June, 1992
the Unions indicated their intention to serve strike notice
regarding "Pot" - this notice was later deferred pending the
processing of the dispute through procedures). At the
conciliation conferences and at meetings at local levels numerous
proposals were explored by both sides (details supplied to the
Court). The Company's position is that it is prepared to replace
the "Pot" with the following:
1. #750 value of C.R.H. shares through a new participation
scheme to be paid annually commencing June, 1993.
2. An immediate lump sum payment of #5,000.
3. The present pension entitlement under "Pot" will be
enhanced and full pension entitlement on #2,000
pensionable salary will replace the existing entitlement
on #1,700. This new entitlement will be index linked,
requiring the normal 7% employee contribution.
The final "Pot" payment will be made at end of July,
1992. The Share Participation Scheme to continue to
retirement of the individual recipients.
The Company also indicated it had a broad agenda which it wanted
discussed under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. The Unions maintain that the
"Pot" agreement should be retained with the amount being
increased. It also wants the 3% increase under Clause 3 paid
without any conditions attached as it claims that the workers'
co-operation over the past number of years justifies the increase.
6. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent
of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 30th
July, 1992 for investigation and recommendation under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Court hearing took
place on 24th September, 1992 (the earliest date suitable to the
parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. There is no justification for the discontinuance of "Pot"
as the Company continues to enjoy the productivity gains
brought about by technology and reduced manning.
2. The Unions' claim for an increase in "Pot" is not in
breach of P.E.S.P. as the increase is due to a legitimate
readjustment of a totally self-financing productivity scheme.
3. The Unions consider that the 3% increase under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. should be conceded without any preconditions as the
workers have already contributed to increased productivity
through previous rationalisation plans.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company considers the Unions' claim for an increase in
"Pot" to be without merit and in breach of P.E.S.P.
2. It is the Company's view that the best method of dealing
with the issue of "Pot" is to buy it out (this view has been
upheld by the Labour Court in L.C.R. 13343). In recognition
of the resistance to this by the workforce the Company's
proposal to replace the "Pot" agreement is fair and
reasonable.
3. On the question of the 3% increase under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. the Company has put forward a broad agenda and has
indicated its willingness to enter into discussions as
quickly as possible.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. The Court has given careful consideration to the submissions
from the parties in this case and has noted previous Labour Court
recommendations in relation to the "Pot Payment". It is clear to
the Court that the issue of the "Pot" prevented any realistic
negotiations taking place on the implementation of Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. In order to allow such negotiations the Court considers
that the "Pot" payment issue has to be addressed in the first
instance.
The Court accordingly recommends that both sides accept that the
existing Pot payment of #1,700 p.a. be retained for the time being
under the conditions presently applicable, the matter to be
reviewed again in 12 months time.
On acceptance by both parties of the above,
discussions/negotiations on the implementation of Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. should re-commence and be processed through the normal
procedures up to and including a further Labour Court referral if
necessary.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
9th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.