Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92397 Case Number: LCR13778 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SANBRA FYFFE - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Clause 3 increase under the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court has considered all the aspects of the case put
forward by the parties in their oral and written submissions. In
all the circumstances it is the view of the Court that concession
of this claim would not be appropriate at this time.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92397 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13778
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SANBRA FYFFE
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Clause 3 increase under the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company manufactures supplies for the merchant plumbing
and heating specialist trade, and also distributes allied
products. It employs 118 workers. The Company paid Phase 2 of
the P.E.S.P. in February, 1992. It refused to enter into
negotiations with the Union on the 3% increase under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. This was unacceptable to the Union. The issue was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission on the 28th February,
1992. A conciliation conference was held on the 30th March, 1992
but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court by the Labour Relations Commission on the 6th July,
1992. A Court hearing was held on the 2nd September, 1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENT:
3. 1. The Company's refusal to enter into negotiations on Clause
3 of the P.E.S.P. is totally unacceptable to the Union. The
workers concerned have made a substantial contribution to the
improved efficiency of the Company since 1985, including the
extension of times on wage agreements, reduction in manning
levels and improved work methods. The Union is prepared to
consider proposals which could be implemented to provide the
finance for the increase. The Company's action is in breach
of the terms and spirit of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The
workers have accepted major changes by way of productivity and
rationalisation over the years and are prepared to make a
further contribution contingent on the Company's commitment to
discuss an increase under Clause 3.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's performance has deteriorated from a position
of having made a profit in 1989 to a projected loss for the
current year. Turnover is down in both volume and actual loss
terms and losses have increased by 35% against the same period
in 1991 (details supplied to the Court). A number of workers
are currently on short-time working. The Company cannot
effect price increases to absorb cost increases because there
is keen competition from imports.
2. The Company would not be able to recover the cost of
conceding this claim and losses would increase substantially.
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. provides that negotiations would be
exceptional and that the increase would not be universally
applied. The Company's performance could not be described as
exceptional and is not the type of Company to which it was
envisaged that Clause 3 would apply. An increase in the
Company's losses would have serious implications for job
security.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court has considered all the aspects of the case put
forward by the parties in their oral and written submissions. In
all the circumstances it is the view of the Court that concession
of this claim would not be appropriate at this time.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
______________________
6th October, 1992 Deputy Chairman.
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.