Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93411 Case Number: LCR14225 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: W. J. DWAN AND SONS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claims by the Union for: (1) the 3% local bargaining increase provided for under Clause 3 of Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.). (2) Improved meal allowance for transport workers.
Recommendation:
9. 3% - CLAUSE 3 P.E.S.P.
1. In considering the claim lodged by the Union under Clause
3 of the P.E.S.P. the Court was obliged to take into account
the full terms of that Clause. Having been provided with
information as to the present difficulties facing the Company
the Court is satisfied that the Company does not fall into the
"Exceptional" category envisaged in Clause 3.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the
claim.
2. Meal Allowance
Concession of this claim would be in breach of Clause 5 of
P.E.S.P. and accordingly concession is not recommended.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93411 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14225
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: W. J. DWAN AND SONS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
and
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claims by the Union for:
(1) the 3% local bargaining increase provided for under
Clause 3 of Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (P.E.S.P.).
(2) Improved meal allowance for transport workers.
GENERAL BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is mainly involved in the wholesale distribution
of beers and soft drinks. The Union's claims were rejected at
local level discussions and referred to the Labour Relations
Commission. A conciliation conference was held on the 24th May,
1993 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was referred to
the Labour Court on the 12th July, 1993. The Court investigated
the dispute in Thurles on the 29th September, 1993 (the earliest
date suitable to the parties).
Claim I 3% increase under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
Background:
3. In September, 1992 the Union wrote to the Company claiming
payment of the 3% increase on behalf of approximately 100 workers.
Management pleaded inability to pay the increase on the grounds
that it had sustained ongoing losses since 1987.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has rationalised its operations and generated
savings through cutbacks in overtime working, short-time
working and increased productivity. The workers concerned
have given substantial co-operation to the Company.
2. The 3% increase has been implemented by many companies in
the soft drinks industry. This increase under the terms of
P.E.S.P. was specifically aimed at workers on lower pay, such
as the workers concerned, whose average weekly wage is #185.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Clause 3 states 'Exceptionally employers and trade unions
may negotiate further wage increases etc'. The Company is not
'exceptional' and has sustained ongoing losses over the past
number of years (details supplied to the Court). Markets have
declined and production utilisation is only operating at a
capacity of 60%. A number of workers have been placed on
short-time working in recent years.
2. Concession of the claim could have adverse implications
for the job security of workers.
Claim 2 Meal Allowance
Background:
6. The Company pays a lunch allowance of #3.82 and a tea
allowance of #2.50 to transport workers. In September, 1992 the
Union submitted a claim for an increase in the allowances in line
with the allowances paid to similar workers in Cantrell and
Cochrane (that Company took over W.J. Dwan in 1987).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
7. 1. The workers concerned are employed in the same type of
work as the employees in Cantrell and Cochrane and are
entitled to similar allowances.
2. Other outdoor staff in W.J. Dwan and Company are
adequately provided for in terms of eating out allowances.
3. The workers concerned undertake heavy demanding duties.
They cannot be expected to provide reasonable meals with the
present allowances. The current meal allowances are totally
inadequate and must be increased.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
8. 1. The Company agreed to pay a meal allowance in 1987 and
this allowance has been adjusted in accordance with the
Consumer Price Index.
2. There is no justification for the Union's claim for parity
with workers in Cantrell and Cochrane. All companies within
the group are autonomous and operate on a stand alone basis.
Remuneration and expense structures are peculiar to each
Company.
3. The Union's claim is cost increasing and precluded under
the terms of P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
9. 3% - CLAUSE 3 P.E.S.P.
1. In considering the claim lodged by the Union under Clause
3 of the P.E.S.P. the Court was obliged to take into account
the full terms of that Clause. Having been provided with
information as to the present difficulties facing the Company
the Court is satisfied that the Company does not fall into the
"Exceptional" category envisaged in Clause 3.
The Court accordingly does not recommend concession of the
claim.
2. Meal Allowance
Concession of this claim would be in breach of Clause 5 of
P.E.S.P. and accordingly concession is not recommended.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Evelyn Owens
___________________
20th October, 1993. Deputy Chairman
T.O'D./J.C.
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.