Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93254 Case Number: LCR14098 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: POINT EXHIBITION CENTRE - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the implementation of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and particularly taking into consideration the losses
presently being incurred by the Point, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim at the present time.
Division: Mr O'Connell Mr Brennan Mr O'Murchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93254 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14098
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: POINT EXHIBITION CENTRE
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS' CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the implementation of Clause 3 (local
bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1989 as a concert and
exhibition centre. The Union presented a claim in February
1992 for an increase of 3% under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. for
130 workers employed on a casual basis. The workers are
employed in various areas on a show by show basis. Rates of
pay were agreed in 1989 and these were revised downwards in
1991. Since then the terms of the P.E.S.P. have applied.
2. The claim for an increase under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
was rejected by the Company in February, 1992. It was
reactivated by the Union in November, 1992 when local level
discussions took place. The parties agreed to refer the claim
to the Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation
conference was held on 19th February, 1993.
3. The Union claimed that the workers' co-operation with the
Company has resulted in increased productivity and reduced
costs. The Company rejected the claim on the basis that it
was not able to afford any increased costs. The Company has
not made a profit since it was established. The claim was not
resolved through conciliation and it was referred to the
Labour Court under Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990 on 7th April, 1993. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 6th May, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers' wage rates are not substantially higher in
monetary terms than the rates established in August, 1989
(details supplied). The workers have suffered a reduction in
real terms. Some workers have only received a 1% increase in
their hourly rates since 1989. This anomaly must be addressed
by the Company. An opportunity to do so has now been
presented in the Clause 3 negotiations.
2. The workers have provided the Company with both functional
and numerical flexibility. This has allowed the Company to
make productivity gains and to become competitive. The most
recent audited accounts of the Company show an increase in
turnover and a decrease in staff costs (details supplied).
The workers have made a significant contribution to the
competitive position of the Company.
3. The Company is exceptional within the terms of the
P.E.S.P. It has argued that it does not require additional
productivity. This underlines the high productivity and
flexibility of the workers. Since August, 1989, the workers
have gained increases of between 1% and 11% while the
combination of nationally agreed increases has been almost
14%. To compensate for these circumstances, the Company is
obliged to concede the 3% increase under Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has made substantial investments in the site
in order to bring it up to international standards. This has
necessitated substantial loans which must be serviced. The
recent high interest rates have added greatly to an already
difficult trading position. The Company has not made a profit
since it was established and is trading with the burden of
accumulated losses. In order to develop business and to
overcome past and current losses, the Company must remain
competitive. There is no scope to increase the wage rates
which already exceed those of competitors (details supplied).
2. The Company must compete with other Dublin and British
venues to attract business and major productions from Britain.
The Company's main Dublin competitor has not paid even the
basic terms of the P.E.S.P.. The main production for the
Company this year is from Britain and has been costed on
present wage levels. The production costs for this production
do not allow for an additional 3% wage bill.
3. The Company's wage rates are competitive and any further
increases cannot be justified to shareholders in view of the
ongoing losses. The Company cannot be regarded as
exceptional. Any further increase in staff costs would result
in a reduction in staff numbers. This may deter promoters
from using the Point as a venue.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court, having considered the submissions made by the
parties, and particularly taking into consideration the losses
presently being incurred by the Point, does not recommend
concession of the Union's claim at the present time.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
John O'Connell
___________________
28th May, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.