Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93331 Case Number: LCR14169 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: MCCARRON AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment by the Company of the terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court recommends, having examined the Company's accounts
and taken account of the views of the parties as expressed in
their oral and written submissions, that the union defer pursuit
of the claim at this time.
The Court further recommends that the parties review the situation
in April, 1994.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93331 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14169
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: McCARRON AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment by the Company of the terms of
Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 130 people at its pig processing
plant. It exports 35% of its produce and is responsible for
7% of the national pig kill.
2. The second phase of the P.E.S.P. was paid by the Company
on 1st August, 1992 and the Union claimed application of a 3%
increase under Clause 3 from the same date. The Company
rejected the claim on economic grounds. The Union agreed to a
6 month deferral at which time the claim would be considered
again. Local meetings took place in January and February,
1993, at which the Company claimed inability to pay.
3. The claim was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference was held on 24th March, 1993.
The Union indicated a willingness to negotiate on the claim
but the Company claimed it was not in a position to
compromise. The parties were asked to discuss the matter
again at local level. This was unsuccessful and the claim was
referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 25th May, 1993. A Labour
Court investigation took place on 24th June, 1993 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim is outstanding since August, 1992. The Union
agreed to its deferral for 6 months on the understanding that
reasonable negotiations would take place. The Company has
never made a loss to the Union's knowledge. If it is to make
a loss for 1993, it should not be considered in the same
manner as if the Company was making continuous losses. The
workers voted to accept the P.E.S.P. on the basis that it
would yield a 13 3/4% rise over 3 years. The Company is now
attempting to pay 10 3/4% over the same period. The Company's
principal argument against the payment of the 3% increase was
the effects of the currency crisis. This argument is no
longer valid.
2. The concession of the 3% increase is important as basic
earnings are low with a heavy dependence on bonus earnings
(details supplied). The Company has benefited greatly during
the P.E.S.P. from changes in the way bonus is paid. The
factory is now capable of killing record numbers of pigs with
the need for less workers. The Company has also made
productivity gains with changes to the sick-pay scheme and in
other areas. The Union has a strong case for the concession
of the 3% increase.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's basic trading difficulty is that it must
compete against much larger Irish and European operations.
This leads to disadvantages in price and economies of scale
(details supplied). These difficulties were exacerbated
recently by the currency crisis. In the 2 years of the
P.E.S.P. to date, the Company has only been able to achieve a
1% increase on gross margin and will make a significant loss
this year. In the same period total operating costs have
increased by 9%. In addition the Company has incurred
considerable capital outlays in recent years.
2. The Company could not be considered to be included even
under a broad definition of "exceptional" in the context of
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The Company cannot afford another
cost increasing claim especially when it is faced with a claim
for a 3.75% increase under phase 3 of the P.E.S.P. in August,
1993. No other Irish pig meat processor has conceded any
increase under the terms of Clause 3.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court recommends, having examined the Company's accounts
and taken account of the views of the parties as expressed in
their oral and written submissions, that the union defer pursuit
of the claim at this time.
The Court further recommends that the parties review the situation
in April, 1994.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
___________________
11th August, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.