Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93139 Case Number: LCR14049 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% increase under 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.
On the fundamental issue of claims made under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
the Court takes the view that the Company is entitled to seek
reciprocal benefits to the amount roughly equivalent to the amount
offered by it under this particular clause. This entitlement is
not affected or diminished by any particular level of prosperity
being enjoyed by the Company.
In the particular circumstances of this case the Court is further
of the view that the terms proposed by the Company are not
invalidated by the fact that they formed part of a previously
negotiated arrangement which failed to come into effect.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties resume
negotiations on the Union's claim under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
taking full account of the Company's counter claim under the same
clause.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93139 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14049
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS' UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% increase under
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is part of the Cement Roadstone Group,
manufactures seawater magnesia at its factory in Drogheda. It
employs 255 workers.
3. The Unions lodged a claim on behalf of general operatives in
November, 1991 for an increase of 3% under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. effective from 1st January, 1992, the date of the 2nd
phase increase. The Company sought a number of productivity
measures in return for the 3% increase. The Unions rejected the
Company's proposals mainly on the grounds that the measures sought
were part of an overall productivity package which had been
previously negotiated. Agreement was not reached as one of the
Unions involved in the negotiations rejected the Company's offer
at that time in return for the productivity package.
4. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
Conciliation conferences were held on 21st January and 10th
February, 1993. As no agreement was reached the Commission, with
the consent of the parties, referred the dispute to the Labour
Court on 22nd February, 1993 for investigation and recommendation
under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A
Labour Court hearing took place in Drogheda on 16th March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company is now seeking major concessions in work
practices in return for an increase less than that which was
previously offered under the original productivity package
(details supplied to the Court).
2. The Unions are willing to enter into negotiations on a
separate productivity package.
3. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. states that full account of the
implications for competitiveness should be taken into account
in return for the increase. The workers have made numerous
concessions over the last number of years (details supplied to
the Court), all of which resulted in savings for the Company.
4. The Company is profitable.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Company is operating in a very competitive market and
must curtail costs in order to remain viable.
2. The Company's profitability has gone down over the past
number of years due mainly to increased production costs
(details supplied to the Court).
3. Under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. the Company is entitled to
negotiate changes in work practices and productivity measures
to off-set the cost of implementing the 3% increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The court has considered the submissions made by the parties.
On the fundamental issue of claims made under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
the Court takes the view that the Company is entitled to seek
reciprocal benefits to the amount roughly equivalent to the amount
offered by it under this particular clause. This entitlement is
not affected or diminished by any particular level of prosperity
being enjoyed by the Company.
In the particular circumstances of this case the Court is further
of the view that the terms proposed by the Company are not
invalidated by the fact that they formed part of a previously
negotiated arrangement which failed to come into effect.
The Court therefore recommends that the parties resume
negotiations on the Union's claim under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
taking full account of the Company's counter claim under the same
clause.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
__________________
22nd April, 1993. Deputy Chairman
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.