Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93348 Case Number: LCR14113 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: WATERVILLE MINK FARM LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation 13837 concerning the Union's claim for implementation of a 39-hour week and payment of Phases 1 and 2 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court in this case is cognisant of the co-operation given
by the staff to the Company in seeking to address the difficulties
that exist.
The Court, from the information supplied, is satisfied that the
Company are operating under considerable financial constraints.
It is clear that full implementation of the provisions of the
P.E.S.P. at this time could jeopardise the future of the Company
and the employment of the workers.
The Court considers however that given the provisions of the
P.E.S.P. the workers concerned had a reasonable expectation that
they would benefit from the increases under the pay provisions of
the programme.
To resolve the issue the Court, given all the circumstances of
this case recommends.
1. That the first phase of P.E.S.P be paid with effect
from the date the Company first offered implementation.
2. That phase 2 be implemented with effect from 1st April,
1994 and that the final phase be put in place on 1st
October, 1994.
3. That taking account of the financial constraints and
the need to protect employment the parties meet to
discuss an equitable solution to the question of
retrospection.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93348 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14113
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26 (1)
PARTIES: WATERVILLE MINK FARM LIMITED
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Re-hearing arising from Labour Court Recommendation 13837
concerning the Union's claim for implementation of a 39-hour week
and payment of Phases 1 and 2 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Union's claim was the subject of a Labour Court hearing in
October, 1992 (LCR13837). The Court recommended as follows:-
"Having considered the issues and the submissions of the
parties the Court considers that in view of the present
circumstances of the Company the implementation of the
Phases of the P.E.S.P. should be deferred to 31st March,
1993 when the circumstances of the Company will be reviewed
and arrangements made for the implementation of the Phases
of the P.E.S.P.
The Company on acceptance of this recommendation should
implement the 39 hour week".
Following numerous meetings between the parties the issue could
not be resolved. Subsequently the workers in a ballot decided to
take industrial action. This was deferred pending the Labour
Court's investigation of the dispute which was referred to the
Court by the Union for a definitive recommendation. A Court
hearing was held on the 14th June, 1993. A letter recommendation
was issued on the 18th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers concerned have given maximum co-operation to
the Company. They are on a low rate of pay and are entitled
to the increases provided for under P.E.S.P. They have waited
two years and payment must be retrospective to July, 1991.
The cost of paying the increase to the workers concerned is
not exhorbitant (less than #4,000).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Due to a recession in the industry, the Company has
sustained losses for the past five years. Management is
anxious to pay an increase to the workers and has offered to
pay 4% which is the first phase of P.E.S.P. without
retrospection. In the present financial circumstances this is
a reasonable offer. The Company cannot afford to pay the
retrospection as this would involve an unsustainable cost.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court in this case is cognisant of the co-operation given
by the staff to the Company in seeking to address the difficulties
that exist.
The Court, from the information supplied, is satisfied that the
Company are operating under considerable financial constraints.
It is clear that full implementation of the provisions of the
P.E.S.P. at this time could jeopardise the future of the Company
and the employment of the workers.
The Court considers however that given the provisions of the
P.E.S.P. the workers concerned had a reasonable expectation that
they would benefit from the increases under the pay provisions of
the programme.
To resolve the issue the Court, given all the circumstances of
this case recommends.
1. That the first phase of P.E.S.P be paid with effect
from the date the Company first offered implementation.
2. That phase 2 be implemented with effect from 1st April,
1994 and that the final phase be put in place on 1st
October, 1994.
3. That taking account of the financial constraints and
the need to protect employment the parties meet to
discuss an equitable solution to the question of
retrospection.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
30th June, 1993. Tom McGrath
T O'D/J.C. ---------------------
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.