Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92614 Case Number: LCR13880 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: A.I.B.P. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS 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. The Court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
In the light of these the Court is of the opinion that the Company
was in the first instance mistaken in refusing to consider the
proposal made originally by the Unions to "to consider any issues
which might help to improve the Company's position and allow for
implementation of the increase".
However in the final analysis as matters presently stand the Court
is satisfied that for the time being the Company is in no position
to concede the 3% under the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The
Court therefore recommends that the Union's should not pursue the
claim until the future of the Company is more firmly assured.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92614 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13880
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: A.I.B.P.
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS 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 Company is the meat processing division of Goodman
International. A meeting was held between the Company and the
Group of Unions on 5th April, 1991, during which a number of
issues were discussed, including inter-alia the pay increases
due under the P.E.S.P. and concession by the Company of a
further 3% pay increase under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. (local
bargaining).
2. Agreement was reached on the basic pay increases as
provided for by the P.E.S.P. No agreement was reached on the
claim under Clause 3 and the claim was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on
5th March, 1992. The Company claimed that it was not in a
position to consider any cost increases that might arise out
of the local bargaining clause. No agreement on the claim was
possible and it was referred to the Labour Court on 1st
October, 1992 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 9th November, 1992 (the earliest date suitable
to both parties).
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim was first made on 5th April, 1991. The Union
has in the interim made every effort to negotiate with the
Company on any issues which might improve the position and
allow implementation of the 3% pay increase provided for under
the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The The Compnay has
refused to negotiate on the claim even though over the years
it has made large profits. This performance was achieved at
the expense of the workers and they received no benefit from
it. The Company's difficulties are well known but it is
unreasonable for the workers to be penalised for the mistakes
and speculative investments of management (details supplied).