Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93138 Case Number: LCR14053 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning Clause 3 (Local Bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress. (PESP).
Recommendation:
Having considered the written and verbal submissions of the
parties the Court has concluded that no true dialogue has taken
place on the issues in this case.
Negotiations under clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. should be concluded on
the basis of a trade off in return for the payment of an amount
not exceeding 3%. Past productivity would not meet this criteria.
Although an exact measurement may not be possible the Court
believes that the parties can reach an understanding of what
constitutes value for money and should proceed to negotiate within
this parameter without delay.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93138 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14053
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: PREMIER PERICLASE LIMITED
AND
TECHNICAL, ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning Clause 3 (Local Bargaining) of the
Programme for Economic and Social Progress. (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures magnesia at its factory in
Drogheda and employs 255 workers.
2. The Union served a claim on behalf of its 38 members for
the 3% pay increase provided for under Clause 3 of the PESP
and a number of meetings took place. The Company sought
changes in work practices which would lead to extra
productivity in return for the 3% pay increase but the Union
were not prepared to concede anything.
3. The matter was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and a conciliation conference took place on the
10th February, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and the
dispute was referred by the Labour Relations Commission to
the Labour Court on the 22nd February, 1993. The Court
investigated the issue on the 4th March, 1993, in Drogheda.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Clause 5 of Appendix A to the PESP allows for
cost-increasing claims under Clauses 1, 3 and 4.
2. It was accepted by the negotiators of the PESP that the
increase under Clause 3 would be achieved without cost to the
employees.
3. The Company is making profits.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The pay increase of up to 3% provided for under Clause 3
of PESP can be negotiated and the workers should agree to
increased productivity and change in work practices in return
for the increase.
2. The Company's profitability has gone down over the years
due to increased production costs and reduced prices in the
market.
3. Wage costs as a percentage of sales price have risen.
4. Increases in labour costs without compensating
productivity contributions from workers affects
competitiveness.
5. During the past 18 months three European plants
producing sinter magnesia have closed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the written and verbal submissions of the
parties the Court has concluded that no true dialogue has taken
place on the issues in this case.
Negotiations under clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. should be concluded on
the basis of a trade off in return for the payment of an amount
not exceeding 3%. Past productivity would not meet this criteria.
Although an exact measurement may not be possible the Court
believes that the parties can reach an understanding of what
constitutes value for money and should proceed to negotiate within
this parameter without delay.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
26th April, 1993 Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./M.H. ____________________________________
Chairman.