Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93525 Case Number: LCR14240 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND LTD.) / GRANTS OF IRELAND LTD. - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Payment of the 3% increase in basic pay under clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social progress (P.E.S.P).
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties as expressed
in their oral and written submissions, does not consider that a
case has been made for concession of the Union's claim and
accordingly, the Court rejects it.
The Court recommends that the Company's proposals be accepted.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93525 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14240
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: SHOWERINGS (IRELAND LTD.) / GRANTS OF IRELAND LTD.
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Payment of the 3% increase in basic pay under clause 3 of the
Programme for Economic and Social progress (P.E.S.P).
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company, which is based in Clonmel and Dublin, is
involved in the processing, importation and distribution of a
large range of alcoholic and soft drinks. The claim, which is on
behalf of 11 drivers and warehouse staff employed in the Company's
Dublin depot, is for the concession of the 3% increase under
Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P. from the 1st of December, 1992.
The Company offered to pay the 3% increase in return for the
following three concessions:-
1. All distribution staff to commence work at 8 a.m.,
finishing at 4.30 p.m. (instead of 8.30 a.m. to 5
p.m.),
2. Caseage on single runs to be increased from 225 to
250 cases and an overnight runs from 300 to 325
cases,
3. Agreement to the introduction of mobile
communication systems.
The Union was not prepared to make the concessions and following
local discussions the dispute was referred to the Labour Relation
Commission for investigation. Conciliation conferences were held
on the 18th of September, 1992, and on the 28th of June, 1993, at
which agreement was not reached. The dispute was referred to the
Labour Court on the 13th of September, 1993 in accordance with
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. The Court
investigated the dispute on the 11th of October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company is part of the Cantrell and Cochrane Group,
which is jointly-owned by Allied Lyons and Guinness's. In
the year ending February, 1992, the group has shown profit
growth and increased sales (details supplied). The Company's
performance has been "exceptional" and there is no reason,
financial or otherwise, that the 3% increase should not be
paid without the concession of further productivity or the
changes in work-practice being sought.
2. The changes are unreasonable. Workers will have to get
up earlier in the morning and re-arrange their domestic
schedule to fit in with the earlier start. The increase in
the number of cases carried on one-man runs is excessive
(cases have to be physically handled) and involves too much
extra productivity from the drivers involved. Over the years
the number of cases on one-man runs has increased from under
100 cases to the present level of 225 cases. In the present
situation in Dublin City, one-man vans delivering drink
products are exposed to considerable dangers. To increase
the load and the number of calls would lead to a greater
mental and physical strain on the drivers.
3. The workers have fully co-operated with change in the
Company over the years (details supplied) and are willing to
negotiate on the changes sought by the Company on a separate
productively basis.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Clause 3 of PESP is very clear on the point that
negotiations under this Clause "must take full account of the
implication for competitiveness, the need for flexibility and
change, and the contribution made by employees to such
change".
2. All other groups within the Company have responded in a
concrete and positive way to the Company regarding Clause 3
of the P.E.S.P. (details supplied).
3. In June, 1992, the Union concluded Clause 3 negotiations
on behalf of the Clerical Staff at Chapelizod and
productivity was conceded in return for the 3% increase
(details supplied).
4. The Company is experiencing extreme difficulty in
achieving the necessary change from the Warehouse / Transport
Staff in Chapelizod in order to increase competitiveness.
5. The Company is facing a surge in competition from
imported products.
6. A 3% increase adds to the Company's overheads, and more
than compensates for the modest concessions being sought.
7. Approximately half of the Transport Staff at Chapelizod
have, under a previous Agreement, agreed to an 8.00 a.m.
start.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the views of the parties as expressed
in their oral and written submissions, does not consider that a
case has been made for concession of the Union's claim and
accordingly, the Court rejects it.
The Court recommends that the Company's proposals be accepted.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
15th November, 1993 Tom McGrath
M.K./A.L. _____________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should by addressed to
Mr. Michael Keegan, Court Secretary.