Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93365 Case Number: LCR14152 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: CHILTON ELECTRIC - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% pay increase under the terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends the following in relation to the Union's claim under
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
(1) The Union agree to the introduction of Paypath.
(2) The multiplier of 4% in the bonus scheme be reduced to
3%.
(3) Both parties accept the above in settlement of the claim.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93365 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14152
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: CHILTON ELECTRIC
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% pay increase
under the terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme
for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1984 and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Glen Dimplex Group. It employs 134
permanent workers.
2. In 1992 (date of 2nd phase of the P.E.S.P.), the Union
made a claim on the Company for the payment of a 3% increase
under the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The claim was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and conciliation
conferences were held on 21st October and 15th December, 1992.
These conferences were followed by further local negotiations.
3. The Company made various proposals to provide a quid pro
quo for the concession of the 3% increase. After much
negotiation on various proposals (details supplied) the
parties negotiated on a proposal by the Company for the
application of the 3% increase in return for the following:
(a) the introduction of paypath for all workers
(b) that the bonus system multiplier of 4% be reduced to
1%.
4. The Union had no principled objection to the introduction
of paypath. It rejected the Company's proposal to change the
bonus system on the basis that the basic wage rates were low
and that the bonus system was the only benefit which the
workers enjoyed.
5. No agreement was possible at conciliation and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 16th June, 1993. The Labour
Court investigated the dispute on 20th July, 1993 (the
earliest date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union is not prepared to consider a change in the
bonus scheme which could result in lower wages than the
workers' received prior to the application of 3%. The Glen
Dimplex Group, which owns the Company is highly profitable.
The workers receive a very low basic rate. The workers
receive no other benefits from the Company other than the
bonus scheme. The Union is prepared to provide a reasonable
quid pro quo in return for the 3% increase. In the
circumstances of the Company's wage structure, the proposed
change in the bonus structure could not be considered
reasonable.
2. When negotiations began on the implementation of Clause 3
of the P.E.S.P., the currency crisis was just beginning.
However, the Company received assistance from the Market
Development Fund during the crisis. The devaluation of the
punt and the record low interest rates have now more than
restored the Company's competitive position. In present-day
circumstances the Union asks the Court to recognise that a
reasonable quid pro quo is what is provided for under the
terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The introduction of "Paypath" will only provide the
Company with a saving of 0.5%. The change in the bonus
multiplier is the only trade-off which is realistically
available to the Company in its present circumstances. The
pay back to the Company is worth less than the 3% increase in
pay because the increase of 3% will in turn be consolidated
into basic rates affecting overtime, bonus etc.
2. The workers will not be exposed to any great risk of
reduced earnings as there will be a buffer left in the
multiplier (details supplied) which will be applied to cover
exceptional circumstances. The Company will continue to
manage the bonus scheme as flexibly and as reasonably as it
has done in the past. The Company trades in an extremely
competitive market which is very cost-sensitive (details
supplied). It has attempted to address the Union's claim and
it is essential that the Company achieves the absolute minimum
cost off-setting measures.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
recommends the following in relation to the Union's claim under
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
(1) The Union agree to the introduction of Paypath.
(2) The multiplier of 4% in the bonus scheme be reduced to
3%.
(3) Both parties accept the above in settlement of the claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
____________________
22nd July, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.