Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD/94/239 Case Number: LCR14509 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: J. MCKENNA LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Claim for a pay increase of 3% under the terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions, considers given
the current financial situation in the Company that it is
inappropriate to pursue this claim at the present time.
The Court recommends the issue be reviewed in April, 1995.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94239 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14509
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
J. McKENNA LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Claim for a pay increase of 3% under the terms of Clause 3
(local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company is a long established family firm of
builders providers and hardware merchants in Listowel.
It employs 28 workers who are represented by two Unions.
The Union involved in the claim represents ten workers
in the builders yard.
2. The Union presented its claim in February, 1993. At a
meeting in March the Company refused to consider the
claim but agreed that the issue could be reviewed in
October, 1993. The Company was at the time in the
process of moving to a new purpose built premises.
3. A further local level meeting took place on 1st
February, 1994. The Company's position remained
unchanged and the claim was referred to the Labour
Relations Commission. A conciliation conference was
held on 23rd March, 1994 but no progress was made. On
the 28th April, 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 Killarney on 28th June, 1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Union's claim has been with the Company for over a
year and no progress has been made. In that time the
Company is the only builders providers in the area to
have expanded. It is now in a position to compete over
a much larger area (details supplied). The Company's
competitors pay their workers #20 to #25 per week more.
2. While the Company's profits have increased and its area
of operations has expanded threefold, the workers' wages
have not increased above the minimum allowed for under
the terms of the pesp. the company is "exceptional" and
is in a position to pay the terms of clause 3 like its
comparator company within the listowel area.
company's arguments:
4. 1. the company operates in a very competitive local market
servicing a small customer base on slim/negative
margins. the company is not "exceptional" and it cannot
afford to incur additional costs. the company's profits
have been declining for some time and shareholders have
not received a dividend from the company since 1985.
2. the company's trading difficulties have been compounded
by the necessity to relocate its premises. this
significant investment was a strategic move which will
consolidate security of employment for all permanent
staff. the investment was funded by large borrowings
which has put pressure on the company's cash flow
(details supplied).
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court, having considered all of the views of the parties
expressed in their oral and written submissions, considers given
the current financial situation in the Company that it is
inappropriate to pursue this claim at the present time.
The Court recommends the issue be reviewed in April, 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour
22nd July , 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.