Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93102 Case Number: LCR13964 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: ANTIGEN - and - SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of Phase 2 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court having considered the written and verbal submissions
of the parties recommends that the Company pay the 3% from 1st
July, 1993 on basic pay. The retrospection (i.e. 1/1/93 to
30/6/93) to be payment deferred until the Company's profitability
is restored. (The Court notes that Management's projection is a
maximum of 12 months).
The Union for its part should enter, as matter of urgency, into
immediate negotiations on the Company's rationalisation programme.
In the event that redundancies are necessary, the calculation will
be based on wage rates inclusive of the 3% and paid in full.
The Court does not recommend the Union pursue its claim under
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. at this time.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93102 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR13964
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: ANTIGEN
(REPRESENTED BY IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICE INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of Phase 2 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures a wide range of generic
pharmaceutical products, mostly for the export market. It
employs 200 workers, 120 of whom are Union members.
2. The Company has claimed inability to pay the 2nd Phase of
the P.E.S.P. because of trading difficulties. As a result of
its financial difficulties, it prepared a rationalisation
programme which involved changes in work practices and
redundancies. A key element of the programme was the deferral
of the 2nd Phase of the P.E.S.P.
3. The Union refused to discuss the rationalisation programme
until the matter of the non-payment of the P.E.S.P. was
resolved. The dispute was referred to the conciliation
service of the Labour Relations Commission. A conciliation
conference was held on 4th February, 1993. A negotiated
settlement was not possible and the dispute was referred to
the Labour Court for investigation and recommendation on 8th
February, 1993, under Section 26(1) of the Industrial
Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation took place
on 11th February, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company has refused to pay the 2nd Phase of the
P.E.S.P., despite its undertaking on 10th March, 1992 to
honour its commitments and enter into meaningful negotiations
on the implementation of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. (relating to
local bargaining details supplied). The Company refused to
show the Union its accounts and thereby verify its financial
position. In recent times it has engaged in investment and
expansion (details supplied).
2. The workers, accepted a rationalisation programme in 1988
which led to 47 redundancies and a one year's pay freeze. The
Company at that time invested in equipment and Company cars.
The workers felt betrayed as a result. The Company is now
seeking further rationalisation, with 15 redundancies.
Workers expect the Company to honour its commitment to the
P.E.S.P. before any negotiation takes place on rationalisaton.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is trading in difficult market conditions
resulting from devaluation, world recession and increased
competition. It has incurred heavy losses over the last 2
years but despite its problems, it paid the first Phase of the
P.E.S.P. Since that payment, market conditions have
deteriorated further (details supplied) and it is not possible
to pay the second Phase of the P.E.S.P. without jeopardising
the survival of the Company. The Company must make the
appropriate decisions and this is provided for within the
terms of the P.E.S.P.
2. The Company is a small operation in a market dominated by
multinationals. Survival depends on competitiveness. The
Company is working to ensure its survival through a
comprehensive rationalisation plan. It is vital, for future
survival that the Company and the Union set about discussing
the rationalisation plan, without further delay.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court having considered the written and verbal submissions
of the parties recommends that the Company pay the 3% from 1st
July, 1993 on basic pay. The retrospection (i.e. 1/1/93 to
30/6/93) to be payment deferred until the Company's profitability
is restored. (The Court notes that Management's projection is a
maximum of 12 months).
The Union for its part should enter, as matter of urgency, into
immediate negotiations on the Company's rationalisation programme.
In the event that redundancies are necessary, the calculation will
be based on wage rates inclusive of the 3% and paid in full.
The Court does not recommend the Union pursue its claim under
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. at this time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
4th March, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.