Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94464 Case Number: LCR14618 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the Company's failure to pay the 1993 increments.
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions and taking into account the
constraints on the Company at the time the increment was being
considered, takes the view that the Company in withholding the
increment did not act unreasonably.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the Union's claim.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94464 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14618
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the Company's failure to pay the 1993
increments.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is engaged in the assembly of integrated
circuits for export to the computer, telecommunications
and automotive industry. It is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Fujistsu Group of Japan and employs
217 workers. The dispute concerns 49 workers employed
in the administrative, technical, supervisory and
engineering grades. The Company has experienced trading
difficulties over the past number of years and was
unable to pay increments due to the workers between
April, 1992, and October, 1992. The Company
subsequently advised the Union of its wish to suspend
the 1993 increments. The Union rejected Management's
proposal.
2. The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations
Commission and conciliation conferences were held on the
9th February and 6th April, 1994. As no agreement was
possible the dispute was referred to the Labour Court by
the Labour Relations Commission on the 8th September,
1994. The Court investigated the dispute on 21st
October, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company's decision not to pay the 1993 increments
has resulted in varying amounts of financial losses to
the workers concerned. Each worker lost a different
amount depending on their point on the scale. Some
workers on the lower end of scales lost substantial
amounts of money.
2. Management is arbitrarily breaching the House Agreement
without recourse to procedures. The Agreement
stipulates that if any change is required it should be
negotiated. The Company did not formally advise the
Union of its intention to suspend the 1993 increments
until after its failure to pay them.
3. The Company has paid all increments to operative grades
and by its action in withholding the 1993 increments is
discriminating against the workers concerned.
4. The Company is in breach of the P.E.S.P.. Management
totally ignored its responsibilities under P.E.S.P.,
imposing the change without using the agreed machinery
in an attempt to resolve the issue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company's labour costs are much higher than sister
companies with which FME competes for business. There
have been many job losses in FME related companies in
Ireland.
2. The Company paid the P.E.S.P. increase of 3.75% in full
in 1993. All promotions due from April 1993 proceeded
as normal equivalent to 1% of payroll. The labour cost
increases for 1993 amounted to 4.75%, comparing
favourably to the inflation rate of 1.9% and projected
increases in the electronics industry in Ireland of 4.5%
3. The Court has already recommended that the Company was
not liable to pay the special bargaining 3% under
P.E.S.P. given its trading position.
4. The Company has agreed to proceed with increments,
salary review, and promotions in 1994, averaging
increases of 5.7% which is over three times the
inflation rate of 1.7%.
5. In deciding not to pay the 1993 increments the Company
acted within the established rules for reviewing
salaries and in the best long term interests of the
Company and its workers. The Labour Court has already
accepted the rights and imperatives for the Company to
control growth for competitive reasons.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered the views expressed by the parties
in their oral and written submissions and taking into account the
constraints on the Company at the time the increment was being
considered, takes the view that the Company in withholding the
increment did not act unreasonably.
Accordingly, the Court rejects the Union's claim.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
December, 1994 Tom McGrath
T.O'D./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Tom O'Dea, Court Secretary.