Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92659 Case Number: LCR13918 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT CLEANERS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Application of Phase 2 of Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that the contract was negotiated in November,
1990 and subsequently. Both the client and the employer in
negotiating this contract were fully aware of the obligations on
Companies under the P.E.S.P. in respect of their employees.
The Court does not accept that there are sustainable grounds for
not implementing the terms of the P.E.S.P. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the second phase be implemented from the due date.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92659 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13918
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: INTERNATIONAL CONTRACT CLEANERS
(REPRESENTED BY THE FEDERATION OF IRISH EMPLOYERS)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Application of Phase 2 of Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. In 1979 the Company was awarded the contract to clean all
mainline trains in Heuston Station and has since held the contract
on a yearly basis. On site it employs approximately 15 part-time
and 15 full-time workers for whom payment of the 2nd Phase of
P.E.S.P. became due on 1st June, 1992. The Company claims that it
is not in a position to pay the 2nd Phase of P.E.S.P. because
Irish Rail (the clients) would not agree to pay an increase in the
contract price. The Union rejected the claim and the matter was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 20th October, 1992, but agreement could not
be reached and the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 23rd
October, 1992. The Court hearing took place on 17th December,
1992.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. It is acknowledged that the Company has made substantial
profits since the contract commenced in 1979.
2. The contract has been a lucrative one and is keenly sought
after by cleaning Companies in the same business.
3. The Company has benefitted by revised crewing arrangements
resulting in increased productivity and a reduction in the
numbers employed on the contract.
4. The job is dirty and difficult with unsocial hours and,
for some of the workforce, to earn a full week's wages is
dependent on getting a late call-in with consequent disruption
to social and family life.
5. The workers concerned are entitled to be paid the 2nd
phase of P.E.S.P. with effect from 1st June, 1992. The
workers have to provide for various cost-of-living increases.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The contract with Irish Rail was re-negotiated in
November, 1990. Because of the economic situation in Irish
Rail at that time a reduction in the contract price was
sought. The Company agreed to a reduction in order to retain
the contract.
2. This contract made a loss in 1992.
3. Since 1979 all national wage agreements have been honoured
and Labour Court Recommendations over and above the national
wage agreements have also been honoured
4. Since the terms of the contract were re-negotiated in 1990
the workers concerned have been paid the final phase of the
P.N.R. and the 1st Phase of P.E.S.P.
5. Since 1990 the cost to the Company of two wage rounds and
increased holiday payments has amounted to #35,000 per annum.
6. In November, 1992, the Company re-negotiated a new
contract with Irish Rail for 1993 with a 3% increase in the
contract price. The Union has been informed that the Company
will honour the 2nd Phase of P.E.S.P. with effect from 1st
January, 1993.
7. The Company had trading difficulties in 1992 but has
maintained its workforce. If the Company were to back date
any remuneration increases it has no doubt that this would
lead to redundancies.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that the contract was negotiated in November,
1990 and subsequently. Both the client and the employer in
negotiating this contract were fully aware of the obligations on
Companies under the P.E.S.P. in respect of their employees.
The Court does not accept that there are sustainable grounds for
not implementing the terms of the P.E.S.P. Accordingly the Court
recommends that the second phase be implemented from the due date.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Tom McGrath
____________________
14th January, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
F.B./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.