Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93500 Case Number: LCR14257 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED - and - MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (MSF |
Claim for a 3% wage increase as provided for under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is
not satisfied that adequate negotiations as envisaged in LCR13749
have in fact taken place.
On one hand, the Company has put the 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
on the table and has allied it to a demand for various concessions
from the workers. These concessions have not, in the Courts view,
been adequately negotiated, because of the Union's principled
objection to the proposed time frame.
On the other hand, the Union has offered a series of concessions
to the Company allied to other demands and there was no evidence
presented to the Court that any detailed assessment had been made
of these.
The Court therefore recommends that both sides jointly examine and
negotiate on all elements of the proposals (both companies and
unions) and suggests that the parties seek the assistance of an
Industrial Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission
for this exercise. If at the end of this process, full agreement
is not achieved, the Court will issue a recommendation based on an
agreed statement of the element, or elements, still remaining
unresolved.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93500 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14257
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: LOCTITE (IRELAND) LIMITED
(Represented by the Irish Business and Employer's Confederation)
and
MANUFACTURING SCIENCE FINANCE (MSF)
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a 3% wage increase as provided for under Clause 3 of
the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. Loctite (Ireland) Limited researches, develops and
manufactures adhesives, sealants and coatings for the European
market. The Company employs 350 people at its two plants in
Tallaght and Ballyfermot. In 1977, the Company and the Unions
negotiated and signed individual comprehensive agreements and
these have been updated at various times over the years.
2. On 14th February, 1992 the Union submitted a claim on
the Company for a 3% wage increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
The Company refused to consider any increase on basic pay
preferring lump sum payments instead At a meeting on 2nd
March, 1992, the Company informed the Union that they would
not consider Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. in isolation from the
Comprehensive Agreement.
3. On 13th April, 1992 the matter was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was
held on 19th April, 1993. Agreement could not be reached and
the issue was referred on the 26th August, 1993 by the Labour
Relations Commission to the Labour Court. The Court
investigated the matter on the 21st October, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Loctite is a very profitable company with a large
turnover in Ireland.
2. The workers are prepared to forego the 3% lump sum
payment under the Comprehensive Agreement for 1993 and
continue the claim under the productivity elements of that
agreement in return for the 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P
3. It is inappropriate to link a six-year productivity
agreement to this claim.
4. If Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. is paid the Union will enter
discussions on a new Comprehensive Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has had a flat sales situation for the past
two years and have budgeted for the same situation in 1994.
2. No new product technologies have been introduced into
the Irish plant, they have gone to European locations instead.
3. A six year agreement will help rebuild corporate
confidence in the Irish operation.
4. The concept of a single negotiation for a six-year
agreement which encompasses the productivity clause of
P.E.S.P. and the Comprehensive Agreement has been accepted by
the other two unions in the Company.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties and the
additional oral evidence presented at the hearing, the Court is
not satisfied that adequate negotiations as envisaged in LCR13749
have in fact taken place.
On one hand, the Company has put the 3% under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
on the table and has allied it to a demand for various concessions
from the workers. These concessions have not, in the Courts view,
been adequately negotiated, because of the Union's principled
objection to the proposed time frame.
On the other hand, the Union has offered a series of concessions
to the Company allied to other demands and there was no evidence
presented to the Court that any detailed assessment had been made
of these.
The Court therefore recommends that both sides jointly examine and
negotiate on all elements of the proposals (both companies and
unions) and suggests that the parties seek the assistance of an
Industrial Relations Officer of the Labour Relations Commission
for this exercise. If at the end of this process, full agreement
is not achieved, the Court will issue a recommendation based on an
agreed statement of the element, or elements, still remaining
unresolved.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Heffernan
24th November, 1993 ---------------
P O'C/U.S. Chairman
NOTE:
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.