Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD92787 Case Number: LCR14085 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FLOGAS - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
A dispute concerning the interpretation of LCR13616.
Recommendation:
5. Having regard to the submissions of the parties and the verbal
arguments made at the hearing, the Court does not consider that
the Union has established a compelling case particularly in light
of the present trading position of the Company. In the
circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD92787 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14085
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1) INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: FLOGAS
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employers Confederation)
and
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. A dispute concerning the interpretation of LCR13616.
BACKGROUND:
2. In March, 1992 a dispute concerning pay parity for 10 sales
representatives employed by the company was referred to the Court.
The Court investigated the matter on the 6th March, 1992 and
issued its recommendation on the 8th April, 1992.
3. In the course of the hearing the issue of the non-replacement
of staff arose. While the Court rejected the pay partiy claim it
recommended:-
"that in the event the Company decide on the
non-replacement of staff the consequences of this
action together with the effect on the remaining staff
should be the subject of discussion with the workers
and the representatives". (LCR13616).
At a meeting held on the 22nd July, 1992, the company stated that
it would not be replacing the sales representative mentioned in
LCR13616 and saw no purpose in further discussions on the matter.
The Union maintained that the workers, having taken on the
additional workload, were entitled to a share of the savings.
3. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on the 17th December,
1992. Agreement could not be reached and the matter was referred
by the Labour Relations Commission to the Labour Court on the 22nd
December, 1992. The Court investigated the issue on the 15th
March, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers having taken on the additional workload and
responsibilities are entitled to a share of the savings.
2. The Court, in LCR13616, recommended discussions in the
event of the non-replacement of the sales representative.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in the financial position to replace
staff or to pay compensation.
2. The Court, in LCR13616, rejected the union's claim for
pay parity because of the company's financial circumstances
The follow on from this is that the company cannot afford to
replace staff or compensate staff in such difficult times.
3. Sales to the more profitable sales sectors are being
eroded and in some cases being replaced by lower margin
business.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having regard to the submissions of the parties and the verbal
arguments made at the hearing, the Court does not consider that
the Union has established a compelling case particularly in light
of the present trading position of the Company. In the
circumstances the Court does not recommend concession of the Union
claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
19th May, 1993 ---------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.