Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94314 Case Number: LCR14550 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS - and - TECHNICAL ENGINEERING OF ELECTRICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning pay round.
Recommendation:
The Court having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions find that the
Company offer should be accepted including the commitment to
address the nature of the application of the PCW with the Unions
in 1995.
The Court so recommends.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94314 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14550
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FINSA FOREST PRODUCTS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
TECHNICAL ENGINEERING OF ELECTRICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning pay round.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company took over a long-established chipboard
factory in 1984. It employs 170, producing particle
board and 'other added value' items primarily for the
Irish and UK markets. The Union represents 29 fitters
and electricians. The dispute concerns the application
of a pay round with effect from June, 1993.
2. In November, 1990, an agreement was reached between the
parties on a pay deal effective from 1st June, 1990 to
bring the workers to a more appropriate level in the
context of the region. The agreement provided for pay
increases of 6% per annum for 3 years, introduction of a
pension scheme and the implementation of the 39 hour
week. The agreement expired on 31st May, 1993.
3. On 6th July, 1993, the Union submitted a claim for a pay
increase with effect from 1st June, 1993. The Union's
position was that the local agreement replaced the terms
of the PESP and that the terms of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (PCW) should apply from the
expiry date.
4. The Company rejected the Union's claim and proposed to
implement Phase 2 of PESP from 1st June, 1993 for 15
months and Phase 3 of the PESP from 1st October, 1994
for a 12 month period. The Company was prepared to
implement 2 phases of the PCW from October 1995 or
alternatively the parties would negotiate pay according
to the circumstances prevailing at that time. The
Company's position was in accordance with an agreement
already reached with another Union representing the
majority of the production workers.
5. Following a number of local meetings, the dispute was
referred to the Labour Relations Commission and a
conciliation conference was held on 25th March, 1994.
No progress was possible and on 27th May, 1994, the
dispute was referred to the Labour Court under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place in Limerick on 29th June,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. On the expiry of the PESP, the Union presented a claim
to the Company for a pay increase. The Company's only
response was to seek to extend the effective period of
the PESP agreement for 2.25 years. The claim has been
with the Company for a year and the Union is seeking a
serious response to it.
2. Prior to the completion of the agreement nationally on
the terms of the PESP, the Union negotiated increases in
success of the pay terms of the PESP. On the expiry of
the agreement, the parties entered into negotiation on a
follow up agreement. The PCW has been agreed since the
negotiations commenced. The Union is now duty bound by
the terms of the PCW and it is not prepared to lose its
early start position.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The PESP agreement applied nationally from 1991 to 1993.
The final phase applies from a variety of dates between
January 1993 to dates in 1994. As the wage round for
the Union fell due in 1993, it is appropriate that the
application of some phases of the PESP would be
proposed. The Company's previous agreement could not
have replaced the PESP as the PESP did not exist when it
was agreed
2. The Company cannot apply the terms of the PCW from June,
1993 as it did not exist in 1993. The Company is
willing to address the Union's concern about an
excessively long deal and it will address the nature of
the application of the PCW with the Unions representing
its employees next year. The Company's serious economic
and commercial circumstances requires pay moderation and
a planned approach to labour costs.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court having fully considered all of the views expressed by
the parties in their oral and written submissions find that the
Company offer should be accepted including the commitment to
address the nature of the application of the PCW with the Unions
in 1995.
The Court so recommends.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
19th August, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.