Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93565 Case Number: LCR14302 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: IRISH SUGAR PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for the introduction of a "protection of earnings" scheme.
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not recommend concession of the claim as made. However, the Court
does understand the anxieties expressed on behalf of the workers
concerned and, therefore, further recommends, in the event of
developments occurring as outlined by the Union that such
developments be the subject of negotiations between the parties at
that time.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93565 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14302
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
IRISH SUGAR PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for the introduction of a
"protection of earnings" scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is an element of the Greencore Group. It
has 900 workers operating from two main plants in Carlow and
Mallow. The claim involves 400 general workers in both the
Carlow and Mallow factories on whose behalf the Union is
seeking a guarantee of sugar-campaign earnings of 15 weeks
minimum plus one week's holidays X 84 hours per week.
2. The period from harvest time to early January, known as
the campaign, and lasting approximately 15 weeks, is a very
busy time for the Company. There is a large intake of beet
from beet producers which must be processed and then either
stored or packed. During this period the workers operate a
3- shift system, 7 days per week. For the remainder of the
year the employees work a basic 39-hour, 5-day week and only
do overtime or shift as the needs of the business demand.
3. The Company rejected the claim and it was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation conference
was held on 1st July, 1993. Agreement was not reached and
the dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act 1990 on 11th October,
1993. A Labour Court investigation took place in Carlow on
1st December, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Over the last two decades a high degree of
rationalisation has taken place in the Company involving
major plant closures and redundancies from the surviving
plants. This has led to a Company which is efficient and
profitable. The workers by their commitment and flexibility
have played a major part in the Company's success by
accepting technological and other change.
2. There is now a fear that by continuing to accept
technological change, the workers will curtail their earning
capacity. The Union does not want to reject new technology
but to achieve a balance between securing and protecting the
best possible terms and conditions of employment for the
workers while co-operating in the changes necessary to ensure
the highest level of job security.
3. If the Company accepts the Union's claim it would allow
for speedier and more positive responses to the Company's
proposals for change. The Company cannot push for greater
profits by reducing the workers' pay and the workers are not
prepared to see their standard of living eroded so that the
shareholders can enjoy higher dividends.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The volume of sugar which the Company produces is
restricted by a quota system thus limiting its ability to
expand output. In addition EC pricing policy has limited the
potential for market-price increases. In these circumstances
cost control is the only means by which performances can be
maintained.
2. The Company has come from many years of losses into
profit but the levels currently attained must be improved if
the core business is to continue to fund its capital
programme (details supplied). The Company's response to the
present claim is that it cannot guarantee earnings as rates
of pay and hours of work must relate to the needs of the
business. The claim is in conflict with Clause 5 of the PESP
as it is clearly a cost-increasing claim.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not recommend concession of the claim as made. However, the Court
does understand the anxieties expressed on behalf of the workers
concerned and, therefore, further recommends, in the event of
developments occurring as outlined by the Union that such
developments be the subject of negotiations between the parties at
that time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
20th December, 1993 Evelyn Owens
J.F./M.M.
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.