Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92649 Case Number: LCR13967 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: DATA PRODUCTS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION;AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION |
Claim by the Unions for payment of the 3% local bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having examined the submissions of the parties, the oral
evidence given at the hearing and the financial details
subsequently forwarded by the Company, the Court does not consider
that the circumstances, envisaged in Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. as
justifying the negotiation of additional pay, exist in the Company
at present. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union
agree to the deferral of further consideration of the issue until
after Easter when it should be reviewed in the light of
circumstances prevailing at that time. The Court further
recommends that the Company's performance should not be impeded in
the meantime through restrictive actions by the workers.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92649 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13967
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: DATA PRODUCTS
(Represented by the Federation of Irish Employers)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
AMALGAMATED ENGINEERING ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Unions for payment of the 3% local bargaining
increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company which was taken over by Hitachi in 1990
manufactures computer impact printers, supplies and also produces
power tools. It employs 400 workers. The Unions' claim, on
behalf of 148 workers, was submitted in April, 1992. The Company
rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission on the 2nd October, 1992. A conciliation
conference was held on the 6th October, 1992 but no agreement was
reached. The dispute was referred to the Labour Court by the
Labour Relations Commission on the 21st October, 1992. A Court
hearing was held on the 4th December, 1992.
UNIONS' ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The 3% increase under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. is an
integral part of that agreement. The workers concerned are
entitled to aspire to obtaining the increase. The Unions
accept that the increases must be negotiated and that
negotiations must have regard to issues such as the Company's
financial position and the contribution which workers are
prepared to make. The extent to which such factors exist can
only be ascertained in normal negotiations. The Company has
refused to enter into negotiations on the claim and cites
trading difficulties as its reason for not so doing.
2. The Unions do not accept that it is the sole prerogative
of the Company to decide whether or not to enter negotiations
on this claim. The relevant clause clearly implies that
negotiations will take place at local level. This is accepted
in industry generally and in previous Labour Court
recommendations (LCRs 13441, 13681, 13701, 13761 13766 refer).
Agreement to negotiate does not imply agreement to concede the
Unions' claim.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is committed to the P.E.S.P. It has paid
phases 1 and 2 of the Programme. Clause 3 states inter alia
that "Exceptionally employers and unions may negotiate further
changes in rates of pay etc." The Company is not
'exceptional'. It has sustained significant losses in the
past three years (details supplied to the Court) and has been
forced to freeze the salaries of management and make savings
in all areas of its business. The Company needs substantial
investment and Hitachi is prepared to provide it if the
Company improves its financial performance. Any claim for an
additional pay increase in these circumstances may damage
management's credibility in attracting a further expansion of
business
2. Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. is not applicable to the
Company at the present time because of its financial
performance. The Company is trying to ensure the viability of
its Dublin plant. It continues to keep the financial
performance of the business under close examination and is
agreeable to re-examine the situation after Easter 1993. The
Company believes that the spirit of Clause 3 should not result
in penalising an employer who is investing in the creation of
new jobs while suffering significant financial problems.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having examined the submissions of the parties, the oral
evidence given at the hearing and the financial details
subsequently forwarded by the Company, the Court does not consider
that the circumstances, envisaged in Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. as
justifying the negotiation of additional pay, exist in the Company
at present. Accordingly, the Court recommends that the Union
agree to the deferral of further consideration of the issue until
after Easter when it should be reviewed in the light of
circumstances prevailing at that time. The Court further
recommends that the Company's performance should not be impeded in
the meantime through restrictive actions by the workers.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
23rd February, 1993 ----------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
ENQUIRIES CONCERNING THIS RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO
MR TOM O'DEA, COURT SECRETARY.