Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD93561 Case Number: LCR14342 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: JAMES MCMAHON AND COMPANY LIMITED - and - MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION |
Dispute concerning; (a) the application of Clause 3 of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and, (b) the non-replacement of staff.
Recommendation:
5. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the
financial position of the business, the Court does not consider
the circumstances under which payments would arise under Clause 3
of P.E.S.P. have been met. Accordingly the Court does not find
grounds to recommend concession of the Union's claim at this time.
However, the Court considers that the situation should be reviewed
in September 1994, having regard to the state of the business at
that time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th February, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./U.S. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquires concerning this recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD93561 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14342
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1)
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES: JAMES MCMAHON AND COMPANY LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
MARINE PORT AND GENERAL WORKERS UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning;
(a) the application of Clause 3 of the Programme for
Economic and Social Progress (P.E.S.P.) and,
(b) the non-replacement of staff.
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. On 18th February, 1992, the Union wrote to the Company
and submitted a claim for the implementation of Clause
3 of the P.E.S.P. The Company rejected the claim and
the matter was referred, together with a claim for the
replacement of staff who had retired, to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on the 15th March, 1993, but no progress was made.
The issues were referred by the Labour Relations
Commission to the Labour Court on the 4th October,
1993. The Court investigated the matter on the 16th
November, 1993.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The number of staff has fallen from 20 to 15 over the
last 5 years.
2. The workers have co-operated by accepting major changes
in the Company and have contributed to the efficiency
and competitiveness of the Company.
3. Other major companies in the trade have implemented
Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
2. LCR14342
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The two other unions in the Company have not made a
claim for the application of Clause 3 of P.E.S.P.
2. The Company does not fit the category of "exceptional"
under Clause 3 of P.E.S.P. and has been affected by the
downturn in the construction and housing industry.
3. The Company faces strong competition in the market.
4. The Company operates a pension scheme where many of its
competitors do not.
5. The Company has implemented all of its obligations
under the P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
5. Having reviewed the submissions of the parties and the
financial position of the business, the Court does not consider
the circumstances under which payments would arise under Clause 3
of P.E.S.P. have been met. Accordingly the Court does not find
grounds to recommend concession of the Union's claim at this time.
However, the Court considers that the situation should be reviewed
in September 1994, having regard to the state of the business at
that time.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
17th February, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
P.O.C./U.S. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquires concerning this recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Paul O'Connor, Court Secretary.