Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94150 Case Number: LCR14542 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: SIFCO TURBINE COMPONENTS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
(1) Claim under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.); (2) Sick pay scheme.
Recommendation:
The Court has considered the submission from the parties and
recommends as follows in relation to the two items in dispute.
(1) CLAUSE 3 - P.E.S.P.
In view of the present situation in the industry at large the
Court considers that negotiations of this claim between the
parties should be deferred until January, 1995.
(2) SICK PAY SCHEME
The scheme as proposed by the Company should be extended by
concession of the Union's claim for the inclusion of shift
pay, subject to a joint review of the incidence of sick leave
being carried out 12 months after the introduction of the
sick leave scheme to confirm that the scheme has not
seriously altered the level of absence due to illness.
Division: Ms Owens Mr McHenry Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94150 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14542
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
SIFCO TURBINE COMPONENTS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. (1) Claim under Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.); (2) Sick pay scheme.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is involved in the provision of repair services
to the international airline and airmotive industry. It
employs approximately 200 workers. The Company's operations
in Cork have two business elements. The repair service, and
the parts trading division where it invests in components for
the purpose of opportunistic trading on an "as needed" basis.
Since 1992, the Union has sought the introduction of a sick
pay scheme and payment of the 3% under the terms of Clause 3
of P.E.S.P. The issues were the subject of a conciliation
conference under the Chairmanship of an officer of the Labour
Relations Commission in November, 1992, at which the Company
indicated that it would consider the claim when business
improved.
Further local level discussions took place but no agreement
was reached and the dispute was referred back to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was held on
7th February, 1994. As no agreement was reached the dispute
was referred to the Labour Court on 8th March, 1994, in
accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations
Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place in Cork on 13th
July, 1994.
CLAIM 1 - CLAUSE 3 OF P.E.S.P.
4. The Union is seeking the payment of the 3% under the terms of
Clause 3, in recognition of existing flexibility and on-going
co-operation. The Company indicated that it is in financial
difficulties and has pleaded inability to pay.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The original claim in 1992, was put on hold when the
workers concerned agreed to management's proposal to
give the claim consideration when business in the
industry improved.
2. The business has improved in 1994. The Company has
employed approximately 30 extra workers who are working
high levels of overtime to meet the demands of the
business.
3. The Union has indicated that it would treat favourably
any Company proposal which would enable it to absorb
some or all of the costs involved in the claim.
4. The workers have made a significant contribution to the
Company by their flexibility and on-going co-operation.
5. The workers are in receipt of basic wages which are
considerably lower than workers in similar employment
and in the circumstances the payment of 3% is justified.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company has pleaded inability to pay the 3% on the
grounds outlined in relation to Clause 3 and on the
basis that it:
(a) realised consecutive losses in 1992 and 1993,
(b) operates in an extremely competitive, hostile
business environment where the actual market is
contracting,
(c) the Company is struggling to remain competitive and
retain market share,
(d) is experiencing continual erosion and downward
pressure on business margins,
(e) must continue to control all costs in order to
remain competitive and must further invest in new
products, processes, and technology in order to
maintain its current position in the market.
2. The airmotive repair market is in decline worldwide as a
consequence of increasing reliability and the technical
sophistication of modern advanced turbine technologies
and the on-going rationalisation/recession within
international airlines. Major customers have
rationalised their operations resulting in fewer
flights, less airplane traffic, with reductions in
maintenance demand.
3. When the parts trading profits are discounted, the
repaid process losses are #165k/440k for 1992/1993
respectively. The Company cannot continue to suffer
further losses.
CLAIM 2 - SICK PAY SCHEME
5. Negotiations have been on-going on the Union's claim for the
introduction of a sick pay scheme and substantial agreement
has been reached. The Company has offered to "top-up" social
welfare payments to give employees basic take-home pay while
absent on sick leave. The Union is seeking the inclusion of
shift pay for shift workers absent on sick leave.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. Under the terms of the Company/Union agreement all
employees may be required to work on a one, two or three
shift basis and be changed from one system to another as
requested by management.
2. The workers concerned have no input into management's
decisions regarding the rostering of workers. It is
reasonable for workers to expect payment of shift
premium in circumstances where they have worked shift
prior to sick absence.
3. Shift workers requested to work days during a period of
shut-down, are paid shift premiums in recognition of
their shift status.
4. The majority of the workers concerned work a rotating
shift on an on-going basis. The loss of the shift
allowance during sick absence would cause considerable
hardship to workers with young families and with
commitments to meet.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
5. 1. The Company's offer compares favourably with sick pay
schemes in industry generally and is fair and reasonable
in the circumstances.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has considered the submission from the parties and
recommends as follows in relation to the two items in dispute.
(1) CLAUSE 3 - P.E.S.P.
In view of the present situation in the industry at large the
Court considers that negotiations of this claim between the
parties should be deferred until January, 1995.
(2) SICK PAY SCHEME
The scheme as proposed by the Company should be extended by
concession of the Union's claim for the inclusion of shift
pay, subject to a joint review of the incidence of sick leave
being carried out 12 months after the introduction of the
sick leave scheme to confirm that the scheme has not
seriously altered the level of absence due to illness.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
8th August, 1994 Evelyn Owens
F.B./M.M. __________________
Deputy Chairperson
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Fran Brennan, Court Secretary.