Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93297 Case Number: LCR14104 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RADIONICS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
8. Noting the respective arguments by the parties to the dispute
and having regard to the terms of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P., the Court
is of the opinion that in general the proposals put by the Company
as a basis for the implementation of the 3% increase are
reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court feels however that the transition from the present
arrangements to those contained within the proposals do to an
extent warrant some consideration and accordingly recommends that
a payment of #100 be made to each person on implementation of the
proposals as made.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93297 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14104
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: RADIONICS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of a 3% increase under
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a distributor serving the high service sector
of the Irish electronic components distribution market. It
employs 43 workers. The weekly-paid employees are split evenly
between office and warehouse.
3. The second phase of the P.E.S.P. was due for implementation on
1st August, 1992. In addition to the 2nd phase, the Company
offered to pay the 3% increase under Clause 3 in return for an
alteration in starting and finishing times for office and
warehouse staff and, the payment of wages by electronic means
direct to the workers' bank accounts (details supplied to the
Court). Under these proposals the starting time would be brought
forward by 15 minutes for some workers and the half hour allowed
for cashing cheques would be abolished. The office personnel
would be required to work an extra 15 minutes per week whilst the
warehouse personnel would have a new rate per hour calculated on
the basis of a 39 hour week instead of a 39.5 hour week.
4. The Union rejected the proposals on the basis that the changes
in the working hours were inconvenient and that the additional 15
minutes to be worked by clerical staff was unfair. The Union
accepted the need for concessions and proposed that, in return for
the 3% increase, a modification in the starting and finishing
times (details supplied to the Court) agreed to the electronic pay
transfer provided the half-hour cheque cashing facility be
retained and used any day by mutual agreement. The Company
rejected the Union's proposals.
5. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission.
A conciliation conference was held on 2nd February, 1993. As no
agreement was reached the Commission, with the consent of the
parties, referred the dispute to the Labour Court on 6th May, 1993
for investigation and recommendation under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place
on 31st May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
6. 1. The Union's proposals meet the Company's aspirations to
provide a more customer orientated service.
2. The Company's proposal concerning starting and finishing
times is inconvenient. It also entails an extra 15 minutes
work per week for clerical staff, which is unfair.
3. The workers concerned have been extremely co-operative
with the Company over a number of years and industrial
relations problems are few and far between.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The Company's business is of a high service nature and its
proposals are aimed at providing customers with a better and
more efficient service.
2. The Company's proposal in an integrated document with each
element inter-linked. It is a fair and reasonable request in
return for the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
8. Noting the respective arguments by the parties to the dispute
and having regard to the terms of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P., the Court
is of the opinion that in general the proposals put by the Company
as a basis for the implementation of the 3% increase are
reasonable and should be accepted.
The Court feels however that the transition from the present
arrangements to those contained within the proposals do to an
extent warrant some consideration and accordingly recommends that
a payment of #100 be made to each person on implementation of the
proposals as made.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
______________________
10th June, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
M.D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Michael Daughen, Court Secretary.