Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93168 Case Number: LCR14063 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BURMAH CASTROL - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning a claim for the payment of the 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
considers that the following proposals should be accepted by both
parties as a fair and reasonable solution to the dispute which has
arisen in relation to the payment of 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
(1) The Company drop its proposals as to non-replacement of
employees leaving service as outlined in paragraph (1) of
their requirements and revert to normal custom and practice in
this area.
(2) The Union accept the Company's proposal for the
non-replacement of the three existing vacancies and two future
vacancies as referred to in their submissions.
and
(3) The Company agree to postpone the introduction of lap-top
computers for the sales representative to the 1st September,
1993, the interim period to be used by both parties to
investigate and clarify the impact of their use on the
Clerical and Administrative grades.
(4) The further reduction in staff levels be postponed for the
duration of P.E.S.P.
(5) On acceptance of these proposals the Company pay 3% with
effect from 1st July, 1992.
The Court recommends the above proposals for acceptance by the
Company and Union.
Division: Ms Owens Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93168 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14063
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: BURMAH CASTROL
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning a claim for the payment of the Clause 3
(local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Phase 2 of P.E.S.P. was paid by the Company on 1st
January, 1992. From the same date the Union claimed
implementation of the 3% increase under Clause 3 (local
bargaining) of the P.E.S.P. The claim was based on past
productivity. This was rejected by the Company.
2. The claim could not be resolved locally and it was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 28th January and 15th February, 1993.
The Company sought the following concessions:
(a) non filling of 3 vacant posts (some temps in
presently)
(b) a further reduction of staff by 2 through natural
wastage
(c) Introduction of lap-top computers, a computerised
notebook which will give sales reps direct access to
computer.
3. The proposals were rejected by the Union as being
excessive compared with the cost of its claim. The matter
was not resolved through conciliation and it was referred to
the Labour Court on 9th March, 1993 under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 7th April, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers have traditionally lagged behind their
counterparts in other oil companies (details supplied). The
total cost to the Company of the 3% increase is far less than
savings from the concessions sought. Consideration of the
claim must be in the context of the workers improvement in
flexibility and productivity in recent years.
2. The Union is seeking that the 3% increase be conceded from
1st January, 1992. In return the Union will concede the
non-filling of the 3 existing vacancies and the redistribution
of their work. This would involve a saving to the Company far
in excess of the cost of conceding the 3% increase. The Union
is willing to discuss the issues of future vacancies and
lap-top computers as part of separate negotiations.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is the smallest oil Company in a highly labour
intensive industry. It is affected by the present recession
(details supplied). It is also at a competitive cost
disadvantage with other companies in the industry as they have
had significant reductions in staffing levels and increased
use of information technology. The Company's proposals in
this context are fair and reasonable.
2. If negotiations on Clause 3 had begun in 1993, trading
difficulties would have made it difficult for the Company to
negotiate (details supplied). The Company must take effective
action to improve efficiency and it is entitled to seek
reasonable concessions in return for the payment of the 3%
increase. The Company/Union Productivity Agreement allows for
the introduction of lap-top computers outside of the Clause 3
P.E.S.P. negotiations (details supplied). The proposals on
staffing are the minimum required to give the Company the
efficiency it needs to be competitive. The Company disputes
the Union's costings on the 3% increase.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions from the parties the Court
considers that the following proposals should be accepted by both
parties as a fair and reasonable solution to the dispute which has
arisen in relation to the payment of 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
(1) The Company drop its proposals as to non-replacement of
employees leaving service as outlined in paragraph (1) of
their requirements and revert to normal custom and practice in
this area.
(2) The Union accept the Company's proposal for the
non-replacement of the three existing vacancies and two future
vacancies as referred to in their submissions.
and
(3) The Company agree to postpone the introduction of lap-top
computers for the sales representative to the 1st September,
1993, the interim period to be used by both parties to
investigate and clarify the impact of their use on the
Clerical and Administrative grades.
(4) The further reduction in staff levels be postponed for the
duration of P.E.S.P.
(5) On acceptance of these proposals the Company pay 3% with
effect from 1st July, 1992.
The Court recommends the above proposals for acceptance by the
Company and Union.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
__________________
1st May, 1993. Deputy Chairman
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.