Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93330 Case Number: LCR14119 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LUCAS AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION |
Claim by the Union, on behalf of six workers, 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 considered the submissions of the parties and examined
the Company accounts, the Court does not find that a case has been
established to warrant recommendation of payment under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. Present trading and the prognosis for the future does
not suggest that this position will change in the short-term.
Therefore the Court recommends that the parties seriously examine
the alternative possibility of some self-financing arrangements
which would benefit the Company and permit some payment to the
workers under Clause 3.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93330 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14119
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
SECTION 26(1)
PARTIES: LUCAS AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business Employers Confederation)
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim by the Union, on behalf of six workers, 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 supplies components to the motor trade and employs
twenty six workers. The six workers concerned are employed as
storemen. The Union's claim was submitted in September, 1992.
The Company rejected the claim. The issue was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held
on the 17th May, 1993. As no agreement was reached the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on the 17th May, 1993. A Court
hearing was held on the 16th June, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The increases provided for under the P.E.S.P. are
moderate. The stated intention of the Programme was to
benefit workers on lower rates of pay such as the workers
concerned whose weekly wage is approximately #221.
2. Many companies have paid their workers the 3% increase
and the Court has recommended in favour of paying the increase
on numerous occasions. The cost to the Company is not
prohibitive. The Union is seeking payment of the increase
from the due date i.e. 1st August, 1992.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. There is a continuing recession in the automotive
industry. The U.K. parent company has gone through major
rationalisation with the closure of many of its factories.
The Irish operation has made a number of workers redundant in
recent years. The Company sustained substantial losses in the
past few years (details supplied to the Court). Projections
for the present financial year predict further losses.
2. The Company cannot afford to pay the 3% increase to the
workers concerned. It is not an "exceptional' company within
the parameters of Clause 3. Concession of the claim could
lead to repercussive claims from other workers in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and examined
the Company accounts, the Court does not find that a case has been
established to warrant recommendation of payment under Clause 3 of
P.E.S.P. Present trading and the prognosis for the future does
not suggest that this position will change in the short-term.
Therefore the Court recommends that the parties seriously examine
the alternative possibility of some self-financing arrangements
which would benefit the Company and permit some payment to the
workers under Clause 3.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
30th June, 1993 ---------------
T O'D/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.