Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93479 Case Number: LCR14236 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: TANCO ENGINEERING LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for the payment of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
5. The Court notes that in this case the claim made by the Union
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. has been "on the table" for some
time but that for reasons explained to the Court, positive
discussions have not taken place to reach resolution.
However, the Court is satisfied that recent adjustments made to
the bonus scheme, albeit unilaterally by the Company, were an
appropriate way of addressing the claim, and should be accepted as
such by the members.
The Court so recommends.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93479 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14236
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: TANCO ENGINEERING LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for the payment of a 3% increase under the terms of
Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company was established in 1963 to manufacture
agricultural machinery mainly for the export market. It
employs 65 workers in the manufacture, sales, service and
design of its range of agricultural machinery. The Company
has paid the 3 phases of the P.E.S.P.
2. In January, 1992, the Union presented a claim to the
Company for the payment of a 3% increase as provided for under
the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The parties met to
discuss the claim on 11th June, 1992. The Company rejected
the claim because of its ongoing financial difficulties. It
proposed a revision of the bonus scheme which was rejected by
the Union at a meeting on 15th September, 1993.
3. A further meeting took place on 26th November, 1993 but no
progress was made. The claim was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was held on
14th July, 1993. The Company again proposed a revision of the
bonus scheme as a means of increasing the take-home pay of the
workers. The Union required negotiations on Clause 3 of the
P.E.S.P. and saw the bonus scheme as a separate issue. No
progress was made and the claim was referred to the Labour
Court on 12th August, 1993, under Section 26(1) of the
Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court investigation
took place on 7th October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The claim has been outstanding since February, 1992. In
November, 1992, the workers agreed to the deferment of talks
on the clear understanding that definite progress was assured
when sales improved. The Company's trading position has
greatly improved and additional workers have been employed to
meet increased production.
2. The workers have tolerated a long delay in processing the
claim and the Company is one of the few companies in the area
which has not paid the 3% increase. The increase is required
because of the comparatively low wage rates in the Company.
The Union is agreeable to an improvement in the bonus scheme
but not in the context of the present claim. The workers have
consistently given full co-operation to the Company and this
should be rewarded.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company operates in a cyclical industry and while it
made profits in 1989, it is in a loss making situation ever
since. Presently trading is extremely difficult (details
supplied) and the Company has operated on a 3 day week for
periods over the last 3 years. In the last few months sales
have been performing well and although it is impossible to
predict whether they will be sustained, the Company hopes to
achieve break-even for 1993. The Company cannot consider any
increase in costs at this time.
2. The Company's survival is contingent on holding down
costs, cutting overheads and increasing sales. Its rates of
pay are in line with those of the locality and the industry
generally. The Company cannot be regarded as exceptional as
is understood by the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. The
Company has recently improved the bonus scheme on its own
initiative (details supplied). It believes that in the
current circumstances this is the only method it can use to
assist the workers to achieve higher earnings.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. The Court notes that in this case the claim made by the Union
under Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. has been "on the table" for some
time but that for reasons explained to the Court, positive
discussions have not taken place to reach resolution.
However, the Court is satisfied that recent adjustments made to
the bonus scheme, albeit unilaterally by the Company, were an
appropriate way of addressing the claim, and should be accepted as
such by the members.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
_____________________
28th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman.
J.F./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.