LCR14622

Subject:
Claims by the Union for payment of (i) arrears due under Phase 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP), and (ii) payment of Phase I of the Programme for Competitiveness and Work (PCW).

Recommendation:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court, given
the current circumstances and financial constraints on the Company
recommends:

(1) That the members accept payment of the first phase of the
PCW as offered by the Company.

(2) That payment of any arrears of payment of the PESP be
deferred for the present and the issue be reviewed after a
period of twelve months.

The Court so recommends.

Division: MrMcGrath Mr Keogh Mr Walsh

Text of Document__________________________________________________________________

CD94417 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14622

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990

PARTIES:
NAVAN CARPETS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)

AND

SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION



SUBJECT:

1. Claims by the Union for payment of (i) arrears due under
Phase 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress
(PESP), and (ii) payment of Phase I of the Programme for
Competitiveness and Work (PCW).



BACKGROUND:

2. The claims concern 180 production workers. The Company paid
the first and second phases of PESP in April, 1991 and 1992
respectively. The third phase increase of 3.75% was due from
1st April, 1993 but was not applied from that date.
Following discussions under the auspices of the Labour
Relations Commission the Company agreed to pay the 3.75%
increase as follows:-

2% with effect from 10th August, 1993.
1.75% with effect from 1st January, 1994.

The parties agreed to subsequently enter discussions on the
arrears due. In March, 1994 discussions commenced on the
arrears outstanding on the third phase of PESP. The Union
also submitted a claim for the increase due under the first
phase of the PCW. No agreement was reached and the dispute
was referred to the Labour Relations Commission. A
conciliation conference was held in May, 1994. Subsequently




a proposal emerged whereby the Company pleaded inability to
pay the arrears under PESP but proposed to pay the 2%
increase under the PCW subject to certain conditions.
Following a ballot of the Union membership the proposal was
rejected. A further conciliation conference was held in
June, 1994 but no agreement was reached. The dispute was
referred to the Labour Court on the 9th August, 1994. The
Court investigated the dispute in Dundalk on the 15th of
November, 1994.



UNION'S ARGUMENTS - (i) Arrears due under the PESP:

3. 1. The workers concerned have given substantial
co-operation and made significant contributions to the
Company since 1982. They have accepted many
redundancies, pay pauses, new work practices,
flexibility and co-operated with new technology.

2. The workers have not submitted claims in relation to the
Special Bargaining increase under Clause 3 of the PESP.

3. The Company's losses have been reduced substantially in
recent times and the workers concerned contributed
significantly in bringing about this situation.


UNION'S ARGUMENTS - (ii) 2% increase under the PCW:

1. Given the co-operation of the workers concerned the PCW
should be applied by the Company without any
preconditions.



COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS - (i) PESP arrears:

4. 1. The Company paid the full 3.75% increase with effect
from 1st January, 1994. It cannot pay the arrears due
because of its current financial position and very
difficult economic climate (details supplied to the
Court).




2. The Company is currently operating short-time working
and has to accept marginal cost work from the U.K.
plants. Payment of the arrears due would exacerbate an
already serious situation.


COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS - (ii) PCW increase:

1. The Company is prepared to pay the 2% increase to the
workers subject to the following conditions:-


(a) The Union accepts that management has the right,
through a process of interview and testing, to
choose the most suitable candidate for training and
for filling vacancies having due regard to
departmental seniority. Should the person chosen
prove to be unsuitable after a trial/training
period of 8 weeks, management reserve the right to
fill the position with an alternative candidate.
Any person who is found to be unsuitable will
revert to their original position.

(b) The Union undertakes to co-operate with the
introduction of new technology and with any
attendant changes in work practices subject to
prior consultation and agreement.

(c) The Company will review existing bonus schemes and
a work study will be carried out with a view to
improving productivity, achieving further
efficiencies and increasing net plant output.
The Union undertakes to co-operate with the planned
review and work study. Any resulting changes will
be implemented subject to prior consultation and
agreement with the Union. It is expected that this
exercise will prove to be beneficial to both the
Company and its employees. It is essential that
these proposals be accepted in return for the 2%
increase.





RECOMMENDATION:
The Court has fully considered all of the issues raised by the
parties in their oral and written submissions. The Court, given
the current circumstances and financial constraints on the Company
recommends:

(1) That the members accept payment of the first phase of the
PCW as offered by the Company.

(2) That payment of any arrears of payment of the PESP be
deferred for the present and the issue be reviewed after a
period of twelve months.

The Court so recommends.
~


Signed on behalf of the Labour Court




7th 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.