Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94227 Case Number: LCR14471 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: APPLE COMPUTER, CORK - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Wage claim.
Recommendation:
Having regard to the Company pay review which is scheduled for
July, 1994, the Court considers that it might not be helpful to
the parties to issue a definitive recommendation at this juncture.
When the review is published the parties should meet to consider
the outcome and engage in appropriate negotiations. If a
satisfactory outcome is not reached, the matter should be referred
back to the Court at that stage.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr Brennan Mr Rorke
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94227 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14471
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
APPLE COMPUTER, CORK
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Wage claim.
BACKGROUND:
2. The Company is a subsidiary of Apple Computer Incorporated of
America. It was established in Cork in 1980. It is one of
the Apple Computer Incorporated's main manufacturing sites
worldwide. The other two sites are in Singapore and
Colorado.
The Union represents 750 workers out of a workforce of 1,200
at the plant. It is seeking a pay increase of 4.75%,
effective from 15th July, 1993. The Company claims it is
unable to pay any wage increase as Apple Computers Inc. has
implemented a wage freeze worldwide, with effect from 3rd
July, 1993.
The dispute was referred to the Labour Relations Commission
and a conciliation conference took place on 2nd November,
1993. No agreement was reached and the dispute was referred
to the Labour Court on 25th April, 1994 under Section 26(1)
of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court
hearing took place on the 31st May, 1994, in Waterford.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. Apple Computer Inc. is one of the major, and most
profitable, computer companies worldwide. In 1992, it
recorded record profits of **530 million, an increase of
71.5% over the previous year. The Company is the only
European manufacturing plant. It accounted for 15% net
profit on sales compared to an average of 12% for other
plants.
2. The workers have made a significant contribution to the
success of the Company over the years. This is
acknowledged by the Company. In May, 1993, the workers
agreed to new cost- cutting proposals from the Company.
These proposals included working 12-hour shifts and
reduced shifts premia. The result was a reduction in
take home pay of up to 20% for many workers.
3. Apple Computers Inc. increased its share of the computer
market from 8% in 1990 to 12% in 1993. It is unfair
that the workers in the Cork plant should be expected to
do without a wage increase for an indefinite period when
the majority of workers in the country receive pay
increases under the National Agreement.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The personal computer (PC) industry has become
increasingly competitive in the last three years. As a
result, Apple Computer Inc. has had to reduce selling
prices to retain its share of the market. In July,
1993, Apple Computer Inc. announced that it would
lay-off 2,500 employees worldwide and impose a pay
freeze to maintain the Company's competitiveness.
2. The Company is unable to meet the Union's claim as a
result of the wage freeze. The wage freeze will
continue until Apple Computer Inc. returns to its former
level of profitability. It is hoped to review the
situation in July, 1994.
3. Wages in the Company are competitive compared to other
computer companies. Wage increases in the past have
always been negotiated between Company and Union. They
are not aligned to the Programme for Economic and Social
Progress or other national wage agreements. As a
result, workers in the Company have received better wage
increases than they would have under the terms of the
P.E.S.P.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having regard to the Company pay review which is scheduled for
July, 1994, the Court considers that it might not be helpful to
the parties to issue a definitive recommendation at this juncture.
When the review is published the parties should meet to consider
the outcome and engage in appropriate negotiations. If a
satisfactory outcome is not reached, the matter should be referred
back to the Court at that stage.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
14th June, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
C.O.N./D.T. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Ciaran O'Neill, Court Secretary.