Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92464 Case Number: LCR13881 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: O'REILLY BROS LIMITED (CONCRETE) PRODUCTS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Implementation of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). 2. Pension Scheme. 3. Sick-pay scheme.
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
additional information provided by the Company, the Court is
satisfied that this Company is not in a position at present to
incur any additional costs. The Court does consider that the
Union should be free to re-submit all the claims, to be dealt with
as and when the financial position of the Company allows.
However, the Court, at the present time does not recommend
concession of the claims made by the Union.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92464 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13881
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: O'REILLY BROS LIMITED (CONCRETE PRODUCTS)
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Implementation of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic
and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
2. Pension Scheme.
3. Sick-pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. O'Reilly Brothers Limited is in operation since 1970. It is
engaged in the production of concrete blocks and Readymix Concrete
at Kingscourt, and in rock quarrying at Taghart. The Company had
a sand and gravel pit at Mullaghmore, Drumconrath until 1990 when
deposits became exhausted. The workforce of 35 is deployed as
follows:
12 Lorry Drivers, 14 general operatives, 5 fitters and 4
administrative staff.
The Union is seeking the following:
(i) the Implementation of the 'Local Bargaining' (Clause 3 -
P.E.S.P.) 3% pay increase, backdated to the 1st March,
1992,
(ii) a Contributory Pension Scheme,
(iii) a non-Contributory Sick-pay Scheme.
The Company rejects the Union's claims for the 3% increase on the
grounds that it is not an 'exceptional' Company and it rejects the
claim for Pension and Sick-pay Schemes for economic reasons.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Committee on the
20th of May, 1992, and a conciliation conference was held on the
22nd July, 1992, at which agreement was not reached. The dispute
was then referred to the Labour Court on the 6th of August, 1992
in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act,
1990. The Court investigated the dispute in Navan, on the 1st of
October, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
Clause 3 P.E.S.P.
3. 1. Rates of pay in the Company are not exceptional for the
particular industry. The main competitor in the area has an
agreement to pay all employees three phases of #5 plus 1% up
to September, 1994, whilst other companies in the area have
paid the 3% increase in full.
2. The fall in the Company's turnover is due to cyclical
variation in the construction industry. Temporary trading or
financial difficulties should not be entertained as a defence
for effectively denying the workers the full benefits of the
P.E.S.P.
Pension Scheme
3. Clause 4 of the P.E.S.P. provides for the introduction of
a pension scheme where none exists. The average age of the
staff is 53 years and with many near retiring age, the need
for a pension scheme is urgent. The long service and advanced
age-profile of the staff will result in the cost of a pension
scheme rising if the Company delays further.
Sick-Pay Scheme
4. Sick-Pay Schemes are the norm in most employments; the
absence of such a scheme can cause undue hardship for workers
who depend on reduced Social Welfare payments. Since there is
no absenteeism problem in the Company, this cannot be a
consideration when weighing-up the pros and cons of
introducing a sick-pay scheme.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 3 - P.E.S.P.
The Company pays its workers one of the highest rates of pay
in the country for the concrete/quarrying industry. Due to
the recession company turnover has dropped considerably in
1991 and 1992 (details supplied to the Court) and due to
intense local competition any further increase in costs could
have disastrous consequences for the Company. On the basis of
the Company's current borderline situation, it could not be
considered to be an 'exceptional company' as referenced by
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
Pension Scheme and Sick-pay Scheme
2. Clause 4 of the P.E.S.P. makes specific reference to the
"capacity of the enterprise to absorb the costs involved".
Quite clearly, on the basis of the financial standing of the
Company (details supplied to the Court) the Company is not in
a position to absorb the extra costs involved in the
introduction of Pension and Sick-pay Schemes.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions made by the parties and
additional information provided by the Company, the Court is
satisfied that this Company is not in a position at present to
incur any additional costs. The Court does consider that the
Union should be free to re-submit all the claims, to be dealt with
as and when the financial position of the Company allows.
However, the Court, at the present time does not recommend
concession of the claims made by the Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
____________________
27th November, 1992. Deputy Chairman
M.K./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.