Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92611 Case Number: LCR14002 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: RYAN PLASTICS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
A dispute concerning a claim for a pay increase under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions notes the Company
are committed to address the matters under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P.
Accordingly the Court would recommend that the parties review the
situation and commence negotiations on or before 1st May, 1993.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92611 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14002
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: RYAN PLASTICS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning a claim for a pay increase under Clause
3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures video, hi-fi and computer
accessories and employs 49 people at its factory in
Waterford. The Union submitted a claim for the
implementation of Clause 3 of PESP early in 1992. The
Company outlined the market difficulties it was experiencing
and the Union agreed to a deferral of this claim. A
three-day working week was introduced from the 20th February,
1992 as a result of these difficulties.
2. In July, 1992 the Union re-submitted its claim for the
implementation of Clause 3 of PESP but the Company was not
prepared to negotiate. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission on the 27th July, 1992 and a
conciliation conference took place on the 19th September,
1992 but agreement could not be reached. The issue was
referred by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour
Court on the 30th September, 1992 and the Court investigated
the matter on the 20th January, 1993 in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is required to negotiate Clause 3 of PESP.
2. The financial position of the Company is not as bad as
it maintains.
3. The majority of companies in Waterford have negotiated
Clause 3 of PESP including firms which have recorded losses.
4. The existing rates of pay in this Company are low and
the workers cannot afford to fall any further behind in their
wages.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Bargaining under Clause 3 of the PESP is not mandatory
on all companies other than those whose performance is above
par.
2. Sales have been badly hit by the recession and this has
resulted in short-time working.
3. The Company gave a commitment to address matters under
Clause 3 before the expiry of the agreement.
4. The Union had originally accepted the Company's position
regarding Clause 3.
5. The Labour Court has accepted in previous
recommendations that the applicability of Clause 3 must take
account of the circumstances which pertain in the particular
company.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having considered all of the views expressed by the
parties in their oral and written submissions notes the Company
are committed to address the matters under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P.
Accordingly the Court would recommend that the parties review the
situation and commence negotiations on or before 1st May, 1993.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
22nd March, 1993 Tom McGrath
P.O.C./M.H. ____________________________________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.