Labour Court Database __________________________________________________________________________________ File Number: CD94198 Case Number: LCR14487 Section / Act: S26(1) Parties: BALLINAMORE TEXTILES - and - SIPTU |
Dispute concerning the payment of a 3% increase underthe terms of Clause 3 (local bargaining) of the Programme forEconomic and Social Progress (PESP).
Recommendation:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that
the circumstances envisaged for the application of Clause 3 of the
PESP have been met in this case. In the circumstances the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court notes however that the question of the application of
Clause 3 is still a matter of consideration at the industry J.L.C.
and a positive outcome would be grounds for the parties to this
case to re-open the issue.
Division: Mr Heffernan Mr McHenry Mr Walsh
Text of Document__________________________________________________________________
CD94198 RECOMMENDATION NO. LCR14487
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990
SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990
PARTIES:
BALLINAMORE TEXTILES
(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 manufactures baby wear and children's
clothing and employs 175 workers. The second phase of
the PESP was implemented on 1st January, 1993. On 23rd
January 1992, the Union made a claim for a 3% increase
in pay under the terms of Clause 3 of the PESP. The
Company is covered by the Women's Clothing and Millinery
Joint Labour Committee (J.L.C.) although it pays in
excess of the J.L.C. rates.
2. The claim was rejected by the Company because of its
claims of financial and trading difficulties. No
progress was made locally and the claim was referred to
the Labour Relations Commission. Conciliation
conferences were held on 3rd September and 10th
December, 1992. The Union agreed to reserve its
position, following the first conciliation conference,
pending developments at J.L.C level.
3. The J.L.C has yet to address on an industry-wide basis
the implications of Clause 3 of the PESP. The Union
re-activated its claim and following a further
conciliation conference sought for the claim to be
referred to the Labour Court. The Company sought the
withdrawal of the claim on the basis of its inability to
pay. The Union awaited further developments at J.L.C.
level.
4. The parties eventually agreed to a referral of the claim
to the Labour Court (details supplied). On 31st March,
1994, the claim was referred to the Court under Section
26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour
Court investigation took place in Cavan on 9th June,
1994.
UNION'S ARGUMENTS:
3. 1. The Company operates on a contract basis for its parent
company and it has few overheads. The workers'
productivity as measured by the Company is 84%. In
1991, the Company introduced Total Quality Management
and converted the working system to a modular system.
This has led to increased productivity and a decrease in
the numbers working.
2. The Company has acknowledged verbally the contribution
made by the workers. The 3% increase under the terms of
Clause 3 of the PESP was seen as an opportunity to
provide a more tangible reward to them.
3. Other Companies in the clothing trade without the
Company's advantages have already paid the terms of
Clause 3. The Company has refused to negotiate on a
national agreement to which it is a party. It is well
placed to pay the increase sought, having benefited from
the reduction in employers' PRSI in the budget as well
as the upward trend in retail sales, which seems set to
continue.
COMPANY'S ARGUMENTS:
4. 1. The Union's claim does not take account of the
deplorable state of the clothing industry which has led
to the rationalisation and closure of so many
businesses. The Company is experiencing very serious
financial and trading conditions and is fighting for
survival in the face of lower cost competition from the
UK and the Far East.
2. The Company exports 100% of the product and is severely
affected by the drop in prices over the last few years.
Concession of this claim would be the catalyst for
rationalisation, which local management have been
resisting for some time. The stance taken by the
Company is driven by the need to contain and, where
possible, reduce costs. The cost of labour remains a
crucial competitive factor for the clothing sector.
3. During 1992, sizeable losses were recorded whilst during
1993, the Company undershot a breakeven target.
Negotiations under Clause 3 should only occur where the
performance of the organisation is exceptional. This is
clearly not the case and concession of the claim would
only have negative implications for the competitive
position of the business.
RECOMMENDATION:
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the oral
evidence presented at the hearing, the Court does not find that
the circumstances envisaged for the application of Clause 3 of the
PESP have been met in this case. In the circumstances the Court
does not recommend concession of the Union's claim.
The Court notes however that the question of the application of
Clause 3 is still a matter of consideration at the industry J.L.C.
and a positive outcome would be grounds for the parties to this
case to re-open the issue.
~
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
24th June, 1994 Kevin Heffernan
J.F./D.T. _______________
Chairman
Note
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to
Mr. Jerome Forde, Court Secretary.