Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94238 Case Number: LCR14486 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BRAYCOT FOODS LIMITED - and - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION |
Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under the terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for Economic and Social progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
The Court notes the extent of co-operation given by the staff in
this Company; the Court also notes, however, the financial
constraints of the Company at this time.
It is the view of the Court that, given the present circumstances,
concession of the Union's claim would not be appropriate at this
time.
The Court recommends that the matter be reviewed in 1995.
Division: MrMcGrath Mr Brennan Ms Ni Mhurchu
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94238 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14486
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BRAYCOT FOODS LIMITED
(REPRESENTED BY THE IRISH BUSINESS AND EMPLOYERS CONFEDERATION)
AND
SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION
SUBJECT:
1. Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase under the
terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme for
Economic and Social progress (PESP).
BACKGROUND:
2. 1. The Company employs 31 workers in the production and
distribution of goods for the luxury biscuit market.
The Union first raised the claim for a 3% increase under
the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP in September 1992.
Phase 2 of the PESP was paid in November 1992. The
Company rejected the claim as it claimed that its
trading position did not allow for consideration of it.
No progress was made by local negotiations and the claim
was eventually referred to the Labour Relations
Commission.
2. A conciliation conference was held on 19th April, 1994.
The Company continued to plead inability to pay and no
progress was possible. On 26th 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 on 16th June 1994 (the earliest
date suitable to both parties).
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The workers' claim has been under negotiation for a
considerable time. The Company has made no attempt to
deal with the workers' aspirations despite the fact that
the claim is a part of a national agreement to which the
Company is a party. At this stage, the third phase of
the PESP is coming to an end and the Company has
enjoyed a competitive advantage over its competitors.
2. The Company's position does not accord with the terms of
the PESP. Since the Company's inception, the workers
have contributed to its development with their
flexibility and acceptance of technological change. The
Union is prepared to consider any reasonable proposals
by the Company. There is no evidence that the Company
is experiencing financial or trading difficulties
(details supplied).
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Company is not in a position to concede any claims
under the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP because of the
poor performance of its product and competition in both
the home and export market.
2. Despite its difficulties the Company has honoured all of
the basic terms of the PESP. Any further increase in
labour costs will damage the Company's ability to
compete. However, if Labour costs are controlled and
contained, the Company believes that it can prosper in
the future. The Company is taking many forms of
corrective action (details supplied) to improve its
trading and financial position.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Court notes the extent of co-operation given by the staff in
this Company; the Court also notes, however, the financial
constraints of the Company at this time.
It is the view of the Court that, given the present circumstances,
concession of the Union's claim would not be appropriate at this
time.
The Court recommends that the matter be reviewed in 1995.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
27th June, 1994 Tom McGrath
J.F./D.T. _______________
Deputy Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.