Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93676 Case Number: LCR14329 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BS & B SAFETY SYSTEMS - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not find that the circumstances of this case meet the requirements
of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim in the present trading situation.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Keogh Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93676 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14329
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BS & B SAFETY SYSTEMS
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. 1. Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under
the terms of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and
Social Progress (P.E.S.P.).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company manufactures pressure relief devices for the
chemical/petro-chemical industries. It has 5 manufacturing
plants around the world. The Irish plant is second to the
American plant in terms of volume. The Irish plant services
Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
2. Phase 2 of the P.E.S.P. was paid by the Company on 1st
February, 1992. A meeting took place between the parties on
3rd March, 1992 concerning the Union's claim for the payment
of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
The claim is on behalf of 38 workers in the factory of which
27 are on short-time since January, 1991. The Company
rejected the claim as its performance could not be considered
exceptional.
3. Further local meetings took place in the Summer of 1993
but no progress was made. The claim was referred to the
Labour Relations Commission and a conciliation conference was
held on 19th October, 1993. An agreed settlement was not
possible and the claim was referred to the Labour Court under
Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990 on 2nd
December 1993. A Labour Court investigation took place on
19th January, 1994 in Limerick.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. As far as the Union is aware the Group as a whole and
the Irish plant are profitable. At this stage it is the only
unionised plant in its area which has not made a settlement
on Clause 3.
2. Although the majority of workers have been on short-time
for a considerable period of time, they have delivered to the
Company a high degree of co-operation and flexibility. In
addition an amount of overtime has been worked which would
not normally be done while short-time was in operation. The
workers on prolonged short-time require the 3% pay increase
to raise their standard of living and reward their commitment
to the Company in recent years.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. Since 1990, the group as a whole has had to support the
Irish Plant (details supplied). The plant is the least
productive and most expensive in the group. The Company must
continue to make efforts to make the Irish Plant more
competitive. This is the only way to secure its long term
future.
2. The Company is not exceptional as required under the
terms of the P.E.S.P. Productivity is low and costs are high
(details supplied). Negotiations on Clause 3 must take full
account of the competitiveness of the Company. Any
concession by the Company would have serious consequences for
competitiveness and, therefore, for employment.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Court does
not find that the circumstances of this case meet the requirements
of Clause 3 of the P.E.S.P.
Accordingly, the Court does not recommend concession of the
Union's claim in the present trading situation.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
7th February, 1994. Kevin Heffernan
J.F./A.L. ________________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.